Click here to


Are you sure ?

Yes, do it No, cancel

Gender Distribution of Invited Speakers and Moderators at the 59th AAPM Annual Meeting

A Roso-Mares1*, S St. James2, A Cetnar3, J Pollard-Larkin4, R Jagsi5, S Evans6, J Moran7, L Cervino8, (1)UCSD,San Diego, CA, (2) UCSF, San Francisco, CA, (3) Ohio State University - James Cancer Hospital, Grove City, OH, (4) The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, (5) University Of Michigan, Medical Center, Ann Arbor, MI(6) Yale University, New Haven, CT, (7) University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, MI, (8) Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY


(Sunday, 7/12/2020)   [Eastern Time (GMT-4)]

Room: AAPM ePoster Library

Purpose: To evaluate the gender distribution of the invited speakers and moderators at the 2017 AAPM Annual Meeting and to explore factors such as age and research impact (using the h-index).

Methods: The gender composition of the AAPM from 2017 was determined using historic data. At the 2017 Annual Meeting, there were 345 invited speakers and 218 moderators. AAPM member profiles and public data profiles were reviewed to determine gender. Statistical analysis was performed for the speakers and moderators separately using a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon U test to compare between the median of two samples (women and men). Analyses were performed with XLSTAT of Excel. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: In 2017, the female-male ratio among the AAPM members was 1:3.2, the largest in the last sixteen years. The women-men ratio among invited speakers was 1:3, close to the ratio in overall membership. Men invited as speakers had higher H-indexes (Mean 23.992, SD 19.184) than women (Mean 17.147, SD 14.558). Invited speakers with less than 20 years of academic experience were more likely to be female (male:female ratio 1:2.5). No statistically significant difference was found among their h- indexes, m- indexes, first year of publication or number of coauthors. Female moderators were underrepresented compared to membership composition with a women-men ratio of 1:4. Male moderators had higher m-indexes (Mean 1.050, SD 0.654) than female (Mean 0.834, SD 0.467). The largest representation of women came from California.

Conclusion: Despite growing numbers of female members in the AAPM, women remained underrepresented in medical physics through 2017. The percentage of women invited speakers matched the percentage of AAPM women members, but the percentage of women moderators was lower than expected for membership composition. These data provide opportunities for the AAPM to encourage greater prominence of women in medical physics.


Gender Equity, Ethics, Professionalism


Education: Analysis

Contact Email