OBJECTIVE To estimate whether there is a gender difference in scholarly productivity among academic gynecologic oncologists. METHODS In this cross-sectional study, the academic rank and gender of gynecologic oncology faculty in the United States were determined from online residency and fellowship directories and departmental web sites. Each individual’s h-index and years of publication were determined from Scopus (a citation database of peer-reviewed literature). The h-index is a quantification of an author’s scholarly productivity that combines the number of publications with the number of times the publications have been cited. We generated descriptive statistics and compared rank, gender, and productivity scores. RESULTS Five hundred seven academic faculty within 137 U.S. teaching programs were identified. Of these, 215 (42%) were female and 292 (58%) were male. Men had significantly higher median h-indices than women, 16 compared with 8, respectively (P<.001). Women were more likely to be of junior academic rank with 63% of assistant professors being female compared with 20% of full professors. When stratifying h-indices by gender and academic rank, men had significantly higher h-indices at the assistant professor level (7 compared with 5, P<.001); however, this difference disappeared at the higher ranks. Stratifying by the years of active publication, there was no significant difference between genders. CONCLUSION Female gynecologic oncologists at the assistant professor level had lower scholarly productivity than men; however, at higher academic ranks, they equaled their male counterparts. Women were more junior in rank, had published for fewer years, and were underrepresented in leadership positions.

We performed this study to longitudinally compare rates of stunting, wasting and underweight among low birthweight (LBW), non-LBW, and/or small-for-gestational age (SGA) and non-SGA infants in Leyte, The Philippines and factors that predicted catch up. Birthweights of 357 infants born in Leyte, The Philippines were obtained within 48 hours of delivery and infants were evaluated at one, six and 12 months. Newborns were classified as LBW, SGA, or both. We derived length-for-age, weight-for-length and weight-for-age Z-scores using WHOAnthro. Generalized estimating equations models were used to compare the differences in prevalence and mean Z-scores for these growth and nutritional outcomes, with separate models made with LBW and SGA as distinct primary predictors. We compared the longitudinal risk of stunting, wasting and underweight during infancy among LBW versus non-LBW and SGA versus non-SGA infants, while also evaluating key potential confounding, explanatory and modifying covariates. Overall, 9.0% of infants were born prematurely, 14.0% of infants were LBW and 22.9% were SGA. LBW infants had significantly increased odds of stunting, wasting and underweight persisting to 12 months of age, and SGA infants had significantly increased odds of stunting and underweight. LBW and SGA infants had higher rates of weight-for-length gain in the first month of life. Maternal educational attainment and exclusive breastfeeding decreased the risk of stunting and undernutrition. In this setting, LBW and SGA infants have higher rates of growth stunting and undernutrition during the first year of life and do not exhibit catch-up growth by 12 months of age.Clinical Trial RegistrationNCT00486863