A team of researchers at The Ronald O. Perelman Department of Dermatology at New York University Grossman School of Medicine set out to determine whether the publicly available reviews of dermatologic surgeons reflect the same gendered patterns documented in other medical and surgical specialties. Their findings, published as a research letter in Archives of Dermatological Research, reveal measurable differences in how patients evaluate male and female dermatologic surgeons online—differences that persist even in a field where women now make up a substantial majority of practitioners.

The research team, led by co-first authors Derek Maas and Archie Spindler, with Kristen I. Lo Sicco and Maressa C. Criscito serving as co-senior authors, drew on a well-established body of prior work. Previous studies have shown that physician rating websites are widely consulted by patients before making appointment decisions, and that the content of reviews varies by physician gender. A 2025 analysis published in JAMA Network Open found that patient perceptions of physicians’ interpersonal and technical skills differed systematically by physician gender in online reviews, while other work has shown that patients writing about female physicians more frequently mention communication style, empathy and appearance-related attributes, whereas reviews of male physicians more often emphasize technical competence and confidence. In surgery specifically, a large 2023 study in JAMA Surgery examining long-term postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing common surgeries found that surgeon sex was associated with differences in outcomes—adding complexity to the question of whether patient perceptions track objective performance or reflect ingrained stereotype.

Against this backdrop, the NYU team focused on dermatology, a specialty that occupies a unique position at the intersection of medicine, aesthetics and surgery. Dermatologic surgeons perform procedures ranging from Mohs micrographic surgery for skin cancer to cosmetic interventions such as laser resurfacing, fillers and excisions. Because these procedures directly alter appearance, patient satisfaction is influenced not only by clinical outcomes but also by subjective expectations about beauty, trust and bedside manner—territory in which gendered assumptions may be especially potent.

To conduct the analysis, the researchers collected publicly available online patient reviews of dermatologic surgeons. Rather than relying solely on crude metrics such as star ratings, the team employed a hybrid methodology combining human judgment with modern natural language processing. Trained human coders hand-labeled a subset of reviews according to the themes and attributes they contained, and those hand-coded data were then used to train RoBERTa—a robustly optimized, transformer-based language model that represents a widely used evolution of the BERT architecture. RoBERTa, first described by researchers in 2019, learns contextual word representations by masking and predicting tokens across massive text corpora, and when fine-tuned on a labeled dataset it can classify incoming text with high accuracy. This approach allowed the investigators to scale their qualitative content analysis across the full review corpus while maintaining consistency in how themes were defined and applied.

The use of machine learning in this context illustrates a broader trend in health services research: the pairing of qualitative content analysis—long the gold standard for understanding what patients actually say—with supervised learning algorithms capable of processing thousands of documents. In their ethics declarations, the authors note that no human participants were involved and that informed consent was not required, since the analysis was confined to publicly posted content. All findings were derived from publicly available data, and the analytic materials may be shared upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

The study’s central finding is that the content of online reviews differs by the gender of the dermatologic surgeon being reviewed. While the specific dimensions of difference echo patterns identified in prior physician review research, their presence in dermatologic surgery is notable for several reasons. Dermatology is a specialty in which female physicians are heavily represented, meaning that gendered review patterns have the potential to affect a large share of the workforce. Moreover, because online ratings increasingly influence patient flow, referral patterns and even institutional hiring and promotion decisions, systematically different review content could translate into unequal reputational capital for male and female surgeons performing comparable work at comparable quality.

The implications extend beyond reputation. A growing literature suggests that patient perceptions, though subjective, are not trivial. They influence adherence, satisfaction and the likelihood of seeking timely care. They also feed back into the professional ecosystem: surgeons with stronger online profiles may attract more patients, more complex cases and more opportunities for academic advancement. If reviews of female surgeons disproportionately emphasize interpersonal attributes while reviews of male surgeons emphasize technical ones—or if similar behaviors are described in different terms depending on the surgeon’s gender—the cumulative effect may be a subtle but persistent penalty or premium attached to gender rather than skill.

The new study also sits within a larger scientific conversation about whether gender differences in surgical outcomes and perceptions reflect performance or perception. The 2023 JAMA Surgery study by Wallis and colleagues, which followed patients undergoing common surgical procedures, reported associations between surgeon sex and long-term postoperative outcomes, fueling debate about whether such differences stem from practice patterns, patient mix, communication styles or bias in how care is delivered and evaluated. Studies of online reviews add a complementary layer: they measure not what surgeons do, but what patients perceive and choose to record. Both layers matter, because perception drives demand even when objective outcomes are equivalent.

The NYU researchers’ methodological choices deserve attention from anyone interpreting the results. Hand-coding ensures that categories such as “interpersonal skill,” “technical skill,” “wait time,” “office staff” and “appearance-related outcomes” are defined by humans with domain expertise rather than by opaque statistical associations. Fine-tuning RoBERTa on those human judgments allows the labeled categories to be applied at scale, reducing coder fatigue and inter-rater drift. The approach is not without limitations—language models can inherit biases present in training labels, and online reviewers are not a representative sample of all patients—but the combination of human curation and machine scale has become a standard for extracting signal from the sprawling, unstructured text that patients generate.

The authors received no external financial support for the research, and the disclosed conflicts of interest relate to unrelated consulting and investigator relationships in dermatology therapeutics. The study was received in February 2026, revised in July, and accepted in August before publication on 9 September 2026 in volume 318 of the journal.

For dermatologic surgeons, the message is twofold. First, online reviews are not gender-neutral mirrors of care; they are texts shaped by the same social expectations that shape face-to-face interactions. Second, because these texts increasingly function as public scorecards, surgeons and the institutions that train and employ them may need to contextualize review data rather than take it at face value. For patients, the findings are a reminder that the adjectives attached to a doctor’s name online may say as much about cultural expectations of gender as about the doctor.

For researchers, the study opens several avenues. Extending the RoBERTa-based classification to other surgical specialties, to multiple review platforms and to longitudinal data could reveal whether gendered language patterns are strengthening or fading as generations of patients and physicians change. Linking review content to objective outcome measures—complication rates, revision rates, patient-reported outcome instruments—could test whether perception gaps correspond to performance gaps or exist independently of them. And methodologically, comparing multiple large language models and coding schemes would help establish how robust the observed differences are to analytic choices.

What is already clear is that the digital waiting room—the constellation of stars, comments and ratings that patients scroll through before booking—reflects social reality as much as clinical reality. In dermatologic surgery, where the product is the patient’s own visible skin, that reflection may be sharper than anywhere else in medicine. This study provides a quantitative, machine-assisted reading of that reflection, and it suggests that even in one of medicine’s most female-dominated surgical fields, the way patients talk about their doctors still depends on who the doctor is.

Bias in healthcare operates insidiously, influencing clinical decision-making, professional trajectories, and ultimately patient outcomes. Researchers and educators are invited to delve into varied dimensions of this phenomenon—from gender blindness and entrenched male bias to racial essentialism and diagnostic overshadowing—unpacking how these prejudiced lenses distort healthcare delivery and obstruct equitable patient care. This thematic exploration aspires to illuminate mechanisms by which biases permeate not only frontline clinical practice but also shape the professional development landscape and educational environments that mold future healthcare providers.

Beyond individual cognition, bias manifests structurally within healthcare institutions, resulting in widespread disparities across populations. The underrepresentation of women in leadership roles within medicine and the experiences of men navigating female-dominated specialties illustrate the complex, intersectional challenges facing healthcare professionals. The issue encourages investigations that connect these workforce disparities to broader implications for academic promotion, clinician burnout, and systemic inequities in healthcare policy and access, thereby advancing a holistic understanding of bias’s far-reaching impact.

Contributory to combating these entrenched injustices, equity-oriented policies and training programs are increasingly being adopted by healthcare organizations. JMIR Medical Education seeks empirical and theoretical studies that rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of such interventions. Particular emphasis is placed on research that assesses the integration of equity-focused language and strategic frameworks targeting structural racism and health disparities within medical education and health systems reform.

Central to this initiative is fostering candid discourse around power relations, oppression, discrimination, and exclusion within the medical domain. By centering these conversations within education and professional practice, the journal aims to accelerate cultural shifts toward inclusivity and justice. Editors encourage submissions that transcend mere acknowledgment of bias, instead proposing actionable strategies and pedagogical models that effect tangible change in healthcare climates.

Aligned with JMIR’s distinctive focus on digital health and innovative teaching methodologies, the issue prioritizes studies leveraging technology-enhanced learning tools to address bias and intersectionality. Manuscripts emphasizing digital education strategies, including the deployment of artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and augmented reality in cultivating gender and racial competence, will be especially welcomed. This integration of emerging technologies represents a transformational frontier in reshaping medical curricula to produce culturally competent clinicians.

The call for papers explicitly invites exploration of intersectionality within medical education frameworks—considering how overlapping social identities modulate healthcare experiences and outcomes. Submissions might examine development and assessment of clinical delivery models, instructional modules, and competency frameworks that incorporate intersectional principles, thereby enhancing the sensitivity and effectiveness of health professional training.

A notable thematic strand is the examination of the hidden curriculum—the implicit, often unspoken gendered dimensions permeating medical education. Unpacking these subtle cultural teachings is critical to uncovering the latent transmission of bias and devising interventions to counteract their deleterious effects. Empirical inquiries into classroom dynamics, simulation-based learning, and online or mobile educational content designed around these themes are particularly encouraged.

Moreover, the journal underscores the necessity of addressing bias and discrimination not only within patient care but also regarding digital health tools and health systems delivery. Investigations into how gender and racial biases infiltrate health technology—potentially impacting product design, algorithmic functionality, and clinical implementation—are paramount to safeguarding equitable digital health futures and ensuring fairness within evolving healthcare ecosystems.

Interprofessional care models and communication strategies tailored to improve women’s health outcomes represent another vital research focus. By dissecting collaborative approaches that enhance wellness, patient engagement, and healthcare experiences uniquely affecting women, contributors can illuminate pathways toward more responsive and patient-centered systems.

Complementary to educational and clinical dimensions are institutional policies fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion across the entire learning continuum. Contributions detailing the conception, adoption, and outcomes of such policies—measurable through digital or data science approaches—are vital. For instance, data-driven analyses of gender disparities in faculty salaries, academic appointments, editorial roles, and scholarly recognition can provide empirical backing for institutional reforms.

Ultimately, the issue aspires to consolidate a comprehensive body of knowledge facilitating medical education’s transformation toward an equitable, inclusive, and culturally competent future. By foregrounding digital health technologies, intersectional frameworks, and robust policy analysis, JMIR Medical Education positions itself at the vanguard of this pivotal discourse.

For further details and submission guidelines, prospective authors are encouraged to consult the official announcement on the JMIR Medical Education website.

Subject of Research: Bias, Diversity, Inclusion, and Cultural Competence in Medical Education

Article Title: Bias, Diversity, Inclusion, and Cultural Competence in Medical Education: A Call for Papers

News Publication Date: October 27, 2025

Web References:

• https://mededu.jmir.org/announcements/622
• https://mededu.jmir.org/
• https://jmirpublications.com/

Image Credits: JMIR Publications

Keywords: Health and medicine, Educational methods, Educational programs, Science education, Education administration, Learning, Education, Gender

A pioneering approach is being adopted at El Camino Health’s Women’s Heart Center, which seeks to fundamentally reform the way heart health is approached for women. A recent national survey uncovered a significant gender bias in the perception of healthcare: 59% of women expressed a belief that a female doctor could better understand their health experiences compared to only 36% of men. Such insights demonstrate the urgent need for dedicated spaces where women receive care tailored to their specific health concerns.

Dr. Jane Lombard, the medical director of the Women’s Heart Center, articulates a profound commitment to improving cardiovascular outcomes for women. She emphasizes that women often exhibit different symptoms than what is traditionally taught in medical training—a reality that could delay diagnoses and lead to poor outcomes. By acknowledging these differences and focusing on providing specialized care, the Women’s Heart Center aims to empower women to take control of their heart health.

The focus of the center extends beyond mere diagnosis; it aims to provide comprehensive care that includes preventive measures for women who possess unique risk factors, such as obesity or pregnancy-related cardiovascular health issues. Interestingly, data illustrates that heart conditions can often go unnoticed in women, as they experience atypical symptoms such as jaw pain, shoulder pain, and unexplained fatigue. Dr. Lombard stresses the importance of familiarity with these signs, advocating for women to advocate fiercely for their health needs.

The correlation between pregnancy and heart health is another critical area of focus for the Women’s Heart Center. During pregnancy, a woman’s body faces significant changes, including an increase in blood volume, which can stress the cardiovascular system and highlight underlying conditions. Unfortunately, many women remain unaware of the potential for developing serious heart issues during or after pregnancy, further underscoring the need for specialized care in this population.

The Women’s Heart Center serves not just as a treatment facility, but as a platform for education and awareness, meaning to dismantle misconceptions surrounding female heart health. One striking statistic from the survey indicated that only 19% of respondents argued against the misconception that men are inherently more susceptible to heart disease—an outdated belief that hampers proactive care for women.

In one compelling case, Margaret Kalb, who proactively sought care based on her family’s history of heart disease, illustrates the impact of specialized cardiac care. Although she showed no symptoms, she opted for a consultation at the Women’s Heart Center and underwent testing that revealed a significant blockage requiring surgery. Kalb’s experience highlights the center’s commitment to not only listening to women’s concerns but taking them seriously and providing appropriate interventions that can save lives.

The findings from the national survey lend credence to the Women’s Heart Center’s mission. Conducted by Ipsos, this poll surveyed 1,024 U.S. adults about their perceptions and experiences related to heart health. The data reveal a clear gap in awareness and acknowledgment of women’s heart health risks, which only solidifies the importance of targeted outreach and education.

El Camino Health has a storied history, serving the communities of Silicon Valley and the South Bay for over six decades. Their commitment to high-quality patient care and access to advanced medical technology is reflected in their numerous accolades. They have received recognition as one of the World’s Best Hospitals and one of America’s Best for Cardiac Care, demonstrating a consistent adherence to clinical excellence and patient outcomes.

In addition to its high standards of care, the Women’s Heart Center aims to foster a nurturing environment where women can freely discuss their health concerns without fear of being dismissed. This is a crucial step in addressing the gender gap in heart health care and ensuring women receive the level of understanding and empathy they deserve from their healthcare providers.

Ultimately, the goal of the Women’s Heart Center is not simply to treat existing conditions but to create a proactive approach towards heart health in women. This initiative could pave the way for more women to enter the field of cardiology, and inspire changes across other medical specialties where gender imbalances persist. If successful, such a shift could fundamentally alter the landscape of cardiovascular care and improve outcomes for women nationwide.

Equipped with a holistic understanding of heart health that encompasses lifestyle, emotional well-being, and physiological variances, El Camino Health’s Women’s Heart Center stands as a beacon of hope. Their dedication to the unique needs of female patients could serve as a model for healthcare facilities across the nation, driving forward the crucial dialogue surrounding gender disparities in medicine.

In closing, the Women’s Heart Center is leading a necessary conversation about heart health that interweaves stories of women like Margaret Kalb with rigorous medical research. This initiative uplifts the voices of women, highlights their experiences, and places their health needs at the forefront of contemporary medical practice.

Subject of Research: Women’s Heart Health
Article Title: Unveiling Gender Disparities in Cardiology: The Women’s Heart Center Initiative
News Publication Date: February 12, 2025
Web References: El Camino Health
References: U.S. Physician Workforce Data Dashboard
Image Credits: Credit: El Camino Health

Keywords: Heart disease, cardiology, women’s health, men vs women health, pregnancy and heart disease, gender disparities in medicine, women’s health initiatives.