Evidence Hub

Trends and disparities in female authorship in surgical publications: A large-scale bibliometric study using natural language processing

D. Renedo, C. Rivier, J. Acosta, Andrew B. Koo, N. Sujijantarat, R. Hebert, G. Falcone, C. Matouk

Surgery, 2026

1 citation

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Gender disparities in academic surgery persist, particularly in authorship positions that signal leadership, mentorship, and scholarly influence. Comprehensive global analyses across surgical specialties remain limited. This study examined gender representation among first and last (senior) authors across surgical subspecialties, countries, and continents using natural language processing applied to bibliometric data.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional bibliometric study of surgical publications indexed in MEDLINE (January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2024), articles were drawn from 30 high-impact journals across 15 subspecialties. Natural language processing tools inferred author gender and country of affiliation. After excluding entries with missing or unclassifiable data, 112,841 articles were analyzed. The main outcome was proportion of female first and last authors by specialty, region, article type, and journal. Secondary measures included temporal trends, Gender Parity Index (GPI), and results of χ2 and trend analyses.

RESULTS

Of 112,727 articles, 32,909 (29.2%) had female first authors, and 22,505 (19.9%) had female last authors. Female first authorship increased from 26.1% in 2015 to 34.1% in 2024, and female last authorship increased from 17.8% to 22.8% (both P < .001). Obstetrics/gynecology (59.8%), pediatric surgery (42.5%), and transplant surgery (39.4%) had the highest female first authorship, whereas cardiothoracic surgery (17.6%) and neurosurgery (18.9%) had…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free