OBJECTIVES Women remain underrepresented on faculties of medicine and the life sciences more broadly. Whether gender differences in self presentation of clinical research exist and may contribute to this gender gap has been challenging to explore empirically. The objective of this study was to analyze whether men and women differ in how positively they frame their research findings and to analyze whether the positive framing of research is associated with higher downstream citations. DESIGN Retrospective observational study. DATA SOURCES Titles and abstracts from 101 720 clinical research articles and approximately 6.2 million general life science articles indexed in PubMed and published between 2002 and 2017. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Analysis of article titles and abstracts to determine whether men and women differ in how positively they present their research through use of terms such as "novel" or "excellent." For a set of 25 positive terms, we estimated the relative probability of positive framing as a function of the gender composition of the first and last authors, adjusting for scientific journal, year of publication, journal impact, and scientific field. RESULTS Articles in which both the first and last author were women used at least one of the 25 positive terms in 10.9% of titles or abstracts versus 12.2% for articles involving a male first or last author, corresponding to a 12.3% relative difference (95% CI 5.7% to 18.9%). Gender differences in positive presentation were greatest in high impact clinical journals (impact factor >10), in which women were 21.4% less likely to present research positively. Across all clinical journals, positive presentation was associated with 9.4% (6.6% to 12.2%) higher subsequent citations, and in high impact clinical journals 13.0% (9.5% to 16.5%) higher citations. Results were similar when broadened to general life science articles published in journals indexed by PubMed, suggesting that gender differences in positive word use generalize to broader samples. CONCLUSIONS Clinical articles involving a male first or last author were more likely to present research findings positively in titles and abstracts compared with articles in which both the first and last author were women, particularly in the highest impact journals. Positive presentation of research findings was associated with higher downstream citations.

中文翻译：

---

科学家如何展示其研究重要性的性别差异：观察性研究。

目标 女性在医学和更广泛的生命科学领域的代表性仍然不足。临床研究自我表现中的性别差异是否存在以及是否可能导致这种性别差距一直难以通过实证探索。本研究的目的是分析男性和女性在如何积极地构建研究结果方面是否存在差异，并分析积极的研究框架是否与较高的下游引用相关。设计回顾性观察研究。数据来源 2002 年至 2017 年间发表的 101,720 篇临床研究文章和约 620 万篇一般生命科学文章的标题和摘要，这些文章被 PubMed 索引。 主要结果指标 分析文章标题和摘要，以确定男性和女性在积极性方面是否存在差异他们通过使用“新颖”或“优秀”等术语进行研究。对于一组 25 个积极术语，我们根据第一作者和最后作者的性别构成估计了积极框架的相对概率，并根据科学期刊、出版年份、期刊影响力和科学领域进行了调整。结果 第一作者和最后作者均为女性的文章在 10.9% 的标题或摘要中至少使用了 25 个积极术语中的一个，而第一作者或最后作者为男性的文章的这一比例为 12.2%，相当于 12.3% 的相对差异（95 % CI 5.7% 至 18.9%）。在高影响力临床期刊（影响因子 >10）中，正面陈述的性别差异最大，其中女性正面陈述研究的可能性要低 21.4%。在所有临床期刊中，积极的表达与后续引用率提高 9.4%（6.6% 至 12.2%）相关，而在高影响力临床期刊中则与后续引用率提高 13.0%（9.5% 至 16.5%）相关。当扩大到 PubMed 索引期刊上发表的一般生命科学文章时，结果相似，这表明积极词汇使用中的性别差异适用于更广泛的样本。结论 与第一作者和最后作者都是女性的文章相比，涉及男性第一作者或最后作者的临床文章更有可能在标题和摘要中积极地呈现研究结果，特别是在影响力最高的期刊中。研究结果的积极呈现与较高的下游引用相关。