Pengfei Yin

Yang Ding, Ning Zhang, Helen Bao et al.

While female representation in social sciences is increasing, systemic gender disparities may persist in research funding and academic performance. Some argue that female scholars now receive equal opportunities, yet evidence suggests that gender imbalances remain, particularly in specific research areas. This study examines 12,945 National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded principal investigators in social sciences from 2000 to 2019 to assess gender disparities in grant allocation, research topics, and post-award academic performance. Findings reveal a dual imbalance. First, despite similar overall funding success rates, female scholars remain underrepresented in high-impact and traditionally male-dominated research topics. Males dominate most funded topics, especially STEM-related ones, while female-led topics align with traditional gender stereotypes. Second, post-award performance patterns suggest that females outperform males in male-dominated fields, whereas males excel in female-dominated ones, undermining any presumed advantage of female scholars in their own research areas. These disparities contribute to the risk of both genders prematurely exiting the science pipeline. Furthermore, early-career experiences shape these outcomes asymmetrically: postdoctoral experience benefits both genders in female-dominated fields, with stronger effects for males, but disadvantages females in male-dominated fields by reducing their output and citation impact. Longer postdoctoral tenure enhances male researchers' citation impact across all fields but has mixed effects for females depending on field gender composition. These findings underscore the need for policies that address not just overall funding equality, but also gendered disparities across research topics and career trajectories.

Jie Huang, Pengfei Yin, Zihan Xu et al.

Foundation Models for Electronic Health Records (FEMRs) are pretrained on large-scale structured patient data, enabling them to convert longitudinal patient trajectories into generalizable representations for diverse clinical prediction tasks. Despite their effectiveness, FEMRs remain black-box models, raising concerns about bias, interpretability, and clinical trust. To address this, we propose the first token-level explainability approach for FEMRs. We train a Transformer-based surrogate model on input-output pairs from the FEMR across two prediction tasks, approximating its behavior while preserving temporal dynamics. We identify the most influential tokens, providing insights into how FEMRs leverage different aspects of patient history for predictions. To evaluate clinical relevance, we introduce a novel clinical alignment metric that quantifies the correspondence between the surrogate model's key tokens and clinically validated features. Our results demonstrate that the surrogate closely approximates FEMR predictions and that token-level explanations align well with clinical knowledge, offering a practical framework for interpretable and trustworthy clinical AI.