Over the last decade, there have been sustained efforts to diversify the physician workforce. In 2009, the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) instituted formal accreditation guidelines that required medical schools to develop programs or partnerships designed to “make admission to medical education more accessible to potential applicants of diverse backgrounds.”¹ These efforts have largely centered on individuals designated “underrepresented in medicine” (URM), defined by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) as those racial/ethnic populations that are “underrepresented in the medical profession relative to their numbers in the general population.”²

Objective: To evaluate trends in racial, ethnic, and sex representation at US medical schools across 16 specialties: internal medicine, pediatrics, surgery, psychiatry, radiology, anesthesiology, obstetrics and gynecology, neurology, family practice, pathology, emergency medicine, orthopedic surgery, ophthalmology, otolaryngology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and dermatology. Using a novel, Census-derived statistical measure of diversity, the S-score, we quantified the degree of underrepresentation for racial minority groups and female faculty by rank for assistant, associate, and full professors from 1990–2016. Methods: This longitudinal study of faculty diversity uses data obtained from the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) Faculty Roster from US allopathic medical schools. The proportion of professors of racial minority groups and female faculty by rank was compared to the US population based on data from the US Census Bureau. The Roster includes data on 52,939 clinical medical faculty in 1990, and 129,545 in 2016, at the assistant professor level or higher. The primary measure used in this study was the S-score, a measure of representation based on the probability of the observed frequency of faculty from a racial/ethnic group and sex, given the racial and ethnic distribution of the US. Pearson correlations and 95% confidence intervals for S-score with time were used to measure trends. Results: Blacks and Hispanics showed statistically significant trends (p<0.05) towards increasing underrepresentation in most specialties and are more underrepresented in 2016 than in 1990 across all ranks and specialties analyzed, except for Black females in obstetrics & gynecology. White females were also underrepresented in many specialties and in a subset of specialties trended toward greater underrepresentation. Conclusions: Current efforts to improve faculty diversity are inadequate in generating an academic physician workforce that represents the diversity of the US. More aggressive measures for faculty recruitment, retention, and promotion are necessary to reach equity in academia and healthcare.

Background: While spouse correlations have been documented for numerous traits, no prior studies have assessed assortative mating for genetic ancestry in admixed populations. Results: Using 104 ancestry informative markers, we examined spouse correlations in genetic ancestry for Mexican spouse pairs recruited from Mexico City and the San Francisco Bay Area, and Puerto Rican spouse pairs recruited from Puerto Rico and New York City. In the Mexican pairs, we found strong spouse correlations for European and Native American ancestry, but no correlation in African ancestry. In the Puerto Rican pairs, we found significant spouse correlations for African ancestry and European ancestry but not Native American ancestry. Correlations were not attributable to variation in socioeconomic status or geographic heterogeneity. Past evidence of spouse correlation was also seen in the strong evidence of linkage disequilibrium between unlinked markers, which was accounted for in regression analysis by ancestral allele frequency difference at the pair of markers (European versus Native American for Mexicans, European versus African for Puerto Ricans). We also observed an excess of homozygosity at individual markers within the spouses, but this provided weaker evidence, as expected, of spouse correlation. Ancestry variance is predicted to decline in each generation, but less so under assortative mating. We used the current observed variances of ancestry to infer even stronger patterns of spouse ancestry correlation in previous generations. Conclusions: Assortative mating related to genetic ancestry persists in Latino populations to the current day, and has impacted on the genomic structure in these populations.

Objectives Differences in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding between specialties may affect research and patient outcomes in specialties that are less well funded.The aim of this study is to evaluate how NIH funding has been awarded by medical specialty. This study assesses differences and trends in the amount of funding, by medical specialty, for the years 2011–2020, via a retrospective analysis of data from the NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results). Study design Longitudinal cross-sectional study Setting NIH RePORTER data from 2011 to 2020 for awarded NIH grants (F32, T32, K01, K08, K23, R01, R03, R21, U01, P30) in the following medical specialties: anaesthesiology, dermatology, emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, neurology, neurosurgery, obstetrics and gynaecology, ophthalmology, orthopaedic surgery, otolaryngology, pathology, paediatrics, physical medicine and rehabilitation, plastic surgery, psychiatry, radiation-diagnostic/oncology, surgery, and urology. Participants NIH grant awardees for the years 2011-2020 Intervention None Primary and secondary outcome measures The following measures were studied: (1) number of grants by specialty, (2) number of grants per active physician in each specialty, (3) total dollar amount of grants by specialty, (4) total dollar amount of grants per active physician in each specialty and (5) mean dollar amount awarded by specialty for each grant type. We investigated whether any of these measures varied between medical specialties. Results In general, internal medicine/medicine, psychiatry, paediatrics, pathology and neurology received the most grants per year, had the highest number of grants per active physician, had the highest total amount of funding and had the highest amount of funding per active physician, whereas fields like emergency medicine, plastic surgery, orthopaedics, and obstetrics and gynaecology had the lowest. The mean dollar amount awarded by grant type differed significantly between specialties (p value less than the Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.00029). Conclusions NIH funding varies significantly between medical specialties. This may affect research progress and the careers of scientists and may affect patient outcomes in less well funded specialties.