Do Gender Disparities Among Major Radiological Society Award Recipients Exist?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To investigate gender representation among recipients of physician awards presented by major radiological societies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed records of distinguished awards recipients given by four major radiological societies from 2000 to 2018. Included awards were those intended for attending physician recipients primarily involved in clinical and educational work which recognized accomplishments over the course of a career. Awards were assigned into one of two categories: awards focused on education or awards focused on leadership or overall contributions. Primary outcome measure was total numbers and proportions of award recipients by gender. RESULTS: During the entire study period, the proportion of female academic radiologists increased from 23.6% in 2000 to 29.6% in 2018 (25.4%). Of the 164 awards recognizing leadership or overall contributions, 35 were awarded to females (21.3%) and 129 to males (78.7%). Of the 29 awards recognizing excellence in teaching, 13 were awarded to females (44.8%) and 16 to males (55.2%). Men were significantly more likely than women to receive leadership awards over the entire study period (p < .001). CONCLUSION: Females are underrepresented among recipients of prestigious leadership awards. In contrast, females are overrepresented among recipients of major teaching awards suggesting a general perception among members of major radiological societies that females are superior teachers and inferior leaders. This finding underscores the importance of continued improvement in female representation in radiology in order to foster a high quality teaching environment as well as continued attention to the fact that females are underrepresented in leadership roles.

Effects of Changes in BI-RADS Density Assessment Guidelines (Fourth Versus Fifth Edition) on Breast Density Assessment: Intra- and Interreader Agreements and Density Distribution.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to determine intra- and interreader agreements for density assessment using the fifth edition of the BI-RADS guidelines and to compare with those for density assessment using the fourth edition of the BI-RADS guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five radiologists assessed breast density four times in 104 mammographic examinations: twice using the fourth edition of the BI-RADS guidelines and twice using the fifth edition. The intra- and interreader agreements for density assessment based on each guideline were determined and compared. The density distribution pattern under each of the four BI-RADS density categories using each guideline was also noted and compared. RESULTS: The intrareader agreement for density assessment using the fifth-edition criteria was lower than that using the fourth-edition criteria (p = 0.0179). The overall intrareader agreement (weighted kappa) using the old criteria was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80-0.87), and the individual intrareader agreement values in five readers ranged from 0.78 (95% CI, 0.69-0.88) to 0.92 (95% CI, 0.87-0.97). The overall intrareader agreement using the new BI-RADS criteria was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73-0.81), and the individual intrareader agreement values in five readers ranged from 0.74 (95% CI, 0.64-0.84) to 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-1.00). The interreader agreement values obtained using the fifth-edition criteria were also lower than those obtained using the fourth-edition criteria (p = 0.006). The overall interreader agreement using the old BI-RADS criteria was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.61-0.69), whereas the overall interreader agreement using the new BI-RADS criteria was 0.57 (95% CI, 0.53-0.61). Overall a higher number of dense assessments were given when the fifth-edition guidelines were used (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Compared with the intra- and interreader agreements obtained using the fourth edition of the BI-RADS guidelines, the intra- and interreader agreements were lower using the fifth-edition guidelines. An increased number of dense assessments were given when the fifth-edition guidelines were used.