Mentorship in Radiation Oncology: Role of Gender Diversity in Abstract Presenting and Senior Author Dyads on Subsequent High-Impact Publications

• Main Authors: Anna Lee, MD, MPH, Ashley Albert, MD, Kent Griffith, MS, MPH, Suzanne Evans, MD, Elham Rahimy, MD, Henry S. Park, MD, MPH, Laura I. Cervino, PhD, Jean M. Moran, PhD, Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier 2020-03-01
• Series: Advances in Radiation Oncology
• Online Access: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452109419301617

Purpose: To generate insights regarding the role of gender in research mentorship, we analyzed characteristics of abstracts selected for oral and poster discussion presentations at the American Society for Radiation Oncology annual meeting and subsequent high-impact publications. Methods and Materials: Clinical radiation oncology abstracts selected for oral and poster discussion presentations at the American Society for Radiation Oncology annual meetings in 2014 and 2015 were reviewed. A multivariable logistic regression model evaluated factors associated with subsequent higher-impact publications among abstracts that led to manuscript publications. The primary independent variable was the presenting–senior (last) author gender dyad (divided into 4 groups based on gender of presenting and senior authors, respectively; eg, “MF” indicates male presenting and female senior). Dyads were classified as MF, FM, MM, or FF. Results: Data were derived from 390 oral and 142 poster discussions. Presenting and senior author pairings were MM for 286 (53.8%), FF for 67 (12.6%), MF for 84 (15.8%), and FM for 94 (17.7%) abstracts. Overall, 403 abstracts led to subsequent publications, of which 52.1% (210) were in a higher-impact journal. Eventual publication in a higher-impact journal was significantly associated with senior author H-index (odds ratio [OR] 3.30 for H ≥ 41 vs < 17; group P = .007), grant support for the study (OR 2.09 for funded vs not, P = .0261), and with the presenting and senior author gender pairing (group P = .0107). Specifically, FM pairings (OR 2.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-4.66) and MF pairings (OR 2.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-4.77) had higher odds of high-impact publication than MM pairings, whereas there was no significant difference in this outcome between FF and MM pairings. Conclusions: Although unmeasured confounding remains possible, MF and FM dyads of presenting and senior authors were more likely than MM dyads to obtain journal publication in a higher-impact journal. Institutions and the profession should support the development and maintenance of respectful, collaborative cross-gender mentorship.