Examining Gender Disparity in Academic Abdominal Radiology in North America

Maria Zulfiqar, Kiran Khurshid, Courtney C. Moreno, Sabeena Jalal, Asra Nayab, Silvia D. Chang, Sayani Sejal Khara, Faisal Khosa

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Scopus citations


Background: Gender disparity exists in nearly every medical specialty, particularly in leadership roles and academia. Radiology is not exempt from this phenomenon, with women making up less than a third of radiology residents in the United States (US). This can have long-lasting effects on the career progression of female radiologists. Our search did not reveal any study on gender composition in academic abdominal radiology. Purpose: To evaluate the academic productivity and career advancement of female academic abdominal radiology faculty in the United States and Canada. Materials and methods: Parameters of academic achievement were measured, including the number of citations and publications, years of research, as well as H-index. Information regarding academic and leadership ranking among academic abdominal radiologists in the United States and Canada was also analyzed. Results: In academic abdominal radiology, there were fewer females than males (34.9% vs 65.1%; p-value 0.256). Among the female radiologists, the greatest proportion held the rank of assistant professor (40%). Female representation decreased with increasing rank. Females had a lower H-index than males (P-value = 0.0066) and significantly fewer years of research than males (P-value = 0.0243). Conclusion: Male predominance in academic abdominal radiology is similar to many other medical specialties, and encompasses senior faculty rank, leadership roles and research productivity.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)669-674
Number of pages6
JournalCurrent Problems in Diagnostic Radiology
Issue number5
StatePublished - Sep 1 2021


Dive into the research topics of 'Examining Gender Disparity in Academic Abdominal Radiology in North America'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this