Published on in Vol 9 (2025)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/66308, first published .
Gender Differences in X (Formerly Twitter) Use, Influence, and Engagement Among Cardiologists From the Top U.S. News Best Hospitals

Gender Differences in X (Formerly Twitter) Use, Influence, and Engagement Among Cardiologists From the Top U.S. News Best Hospitals

Gender Differences in X (Formerly Twitter) Use, Influence, and Engagement Among Cardiologists From the Top U.S. News Best Hospitals

1Department of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, United States

2Biostatistics Research Center, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, United States

3Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8700 Beverly Blvd AC1019, Los Angeles, CA, United States

4Department of Cardiology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, United States

Corresponding Author:

Katelyn M Atkins, MD, PhD




Women in medicine face significant barriers to compensation, career advancement, and research support, even when controlling for specialty, age, and/or clinical experience [1]. These barriers are especially pronounced in cardiology, where women comprise only 15% of practicing cardiologists and are less likely to be clinical trial leaders or present late-breaking trials at major cardiovascular conferences [2-4]. Social media platforms, such as X (formerly Twitter), can foster collaboration, mentorship, and promotion of research [5,6]. However, studies examining X’s impact on existing gender gaps are limited. In this study, we aimed to analyze differences between X users and non–X users and differences in X use by gender among adult cardiologists.


Ethical Considerations

This cross-sectional study was exempt from ethical approval by the Cedars-Sinai institutional review board due to the use of publicly available data.

Study Design

The top 20 U.S. News Best Hospitals for cardiology, heart surgery, and vascular surgery were identified from the 2023 ranking (Table 1) [7]. Available physician website profiles of fellowship-trained adult medicine cardiologists were manually reviewed by 3 investigators (MS, HT, and OP) for inclusion, and demographic information was collected (eg, academic appointment, apparent gender, and medical school and fellowship graduation years). Physicians were evaluated for the presence of an X account, and public data were manually collected between December 8, 2023, and May 9, 2024. Differences between non–X users and X users and between women and men X users were compared, using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for continuous variables and chi-square or Fisher exact tests for categorical variables as appropriate.

Table 1. Top 20 U.S. News Best Hospitals for cardiology, heart surgery, and vascular surgery (2023 ranking).
Institution nameStateTotal physicians (N=2022), n (%)Physicians on X (n=753), n (%)
Brigham and WomensMassachusetts143 (7.07)73 (9.69)
Cedars SinaiCalifornia56 (2.77)22 (2.92)
Cleveland ClinicFlorida and Ohio126 (6.23)51 (6.77)
Johns HopkinsMaryland102 (5.04)35 (4.65)
Houston MethodistTexas64 (3.17)33 (4.38)
Lenox Hill at NorthwellNew York117 (5.79)27 (3.59)
Massachusetts GeneralMassachusetts100 (4.95)57 (7.57)
Mayo Clinic RochesterMinnesota156 (7.72)68 (9.03)
Mount SinaiFlorida, New Jersey, and New York201 (9.94)64 (8.50)
NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital Columbia and CornellNew York54 (2.67)15 (1.99)
NYU Langone HospitalsNew York164 (8.11)20 (2.66)
Northwell NorthshoreNew York93 (4.60)15 (1.99)
NorthwesternIllinois112 (5.54)47 (6.24)
Rush UniversityIllinois44 (2.18)22 (2.92)
Stanford HospitalCalifornia88 (4.35)45 (5.98)
Texas Heart Institute at BaylorTexas14 (0.69)5 (0.66)
University of California, Los AngelesCalifornia76 (3.76)29 (3.85)
UT SouthwesternTexas77 (3.81)38 (5.05)
University of PennsylvaniaPennsylvania134 (6.63)58 (7.70)
VanderbiltTennessee101 (5.00)29 (3.85)

In total, 2022 cardiology physician profiles were analyzed; 37.61% (n=753) were on X, and 63.39% (n=1269) were not on X. Compared to nonusers, X users had a higher proportion of women (240/753, 31.87% vs 269/1269, 21.20%), higher academic faculty appointments, and a greater number of advanced degrees (all P<.001). Women and men X users had similar total practice durations (counted from fellowship training completion until 2024; median 10, IQR 1-45 y vs median 12, IQR 1-48 y; P=.14), but women’s practice durations since joining X were significantly lower (median 6.4, IQR 5-11 y vs median 7.8, IQR 5-10 y; P<.001). After adjusting for the number of years on X, women and men showed similar numbers of followers (median 71.46, IQR 24.8‐180.84 vs median 78.05, IQR 24.96‐197.33 per year on X; P=.68) and posts (median 29.1, IQR 5.06‐102.47 vs median 28.04, IQR 5.22‐111.15 per year on X; P=.98), but women had higher levels of self-engagement (number of users followed: median 42.11, IQR 16.8‐84.77 vs median 31.9, IQR 11.48‐70.4 per year on X; P=.02; number of liked posts: median 112.52, IQR 16.58‐430.1 vs median 64.49, IQR 6.94‐318.98 per year on X; P=.02; Table 2). Per a thematic analysis of biographical text, women were more likely than men to mention being a parent (48/239, 20.08% vs 64/513, 12.48%; P=.006), but there was no significant difference in mentions of jobs (P=.36) or hobbies (P=.89; Table 2).

Table 2. Characteristics and demographics of top hospital cardiologists on X, stratified by gender.
VariableNot on X (n=1269)On X (n=753)P valueaMen on X (n=513)Women on X (n=240)P valueb
Geographic region, n (%c)<.001.72
 Northeast741 (58.39)364 (48.34)245 (47.76)119 (49.58)
 Midwest249 (19.62)187 (24.83)130 (25.34)57 (23.75)
 South155 (12.21)106 (14.08)69 (13.45)37 (15.42)
 West124 (9.77)96 (12.75)69 (13.45)27 (11.25)
Gender, n (%c)<.001d
 Men1000 (78.8)513 (68.13)
 Women269 (21.20)240 (31.87)
Faculty type, n (%c)<.001.06
 Not explicitly listed347 (27.34)191 (25.37)135 (26.32)56 (23.33)
 Instructor/clinician97 (7.64)39 (5.18)21 (4.09)18 (7.5)
 Assistant441 (34.75)227 (30.15)149 (29.04)78 (32.5)
 Associate208 (16.39)153 (20.32)100 (19.49)53 (22.08)
 Professor176 (13.87)143 (18.99)108 (21.05)35 (14.58)
Number of leadership titles, n (%c)<.001.11
 0840 (66.19)360 (47.81)239 (46.59)121 (50.42)
 1306 (24.11)241 (32.01)159 (30.99)82 (34.17)
 295 (7.49)111 (14.74)85 (16.57)26 (10.83)
 ≥328 (2.21)41 (5.44)30 (5.85)11 (4.58)
Subspecialty, n (%c)<.001<.001
 General552 (43.53)213 (28.29)133 (25.93)80 (33.33)
 Interventional226 (17.82)112 (14.87)90 (17.54)22 (9.17)
 Imaging193 (15.22)121 (16.07)68 (13.26)53 (22.08)
 Congenital31 (2.44)24 (3.19)12 (2.34)12 (5)
 Heart failure91 (7.18)121 (16.07)78 (15.2)43 (17.92)
 Electrophysiology138 (10.88)95 (12.62)84 (16.37)11 (4.58)
 Other37 (2.92)67 (8.9)48 (9.36)19 (7.92)
Dual degree, n (%c)
 PhD<.001.34
  No1183 (93.22)662 (87.92)447 (87.13)215 (89.58)
  Yes86 (6.78)91 (12.08)66 (12.87)25 (10.42)
MS<.001.71
  No1220 (96.14)679 (90.17)464 (90.45)215 (89.58)
  Yes49 (3.86)74 (9.83)49 (9.55)25 (10.42)
MPH<.001.55
  No1226 (96.61)680 (90.31)461 (89.86)219 (91.25)
  Yes43 (3.39)73 (9.69)52 (10.14)21 (8.75)
MBA.24.76
  No1255 (98.9)740 (98.27)503 (98.05)237 (98.75)
  Yes14 (1.1)13 (1.73)10 (1.95)3 (1.25)
Practice duration (years)<.001.14
 Median (IQR)21 (12‐31)11 (6‐21)12 (1‐48)10 (1‐45)
 Overall: <9; physicians on X: <7, n (%e)152 (37.91)249 (62.09)117 (68.82)53 (31.18)
 Overall: ≥9 and <17; physicians on X: ≥7 and <11, n (%e)270 (60.81)174 (39.19)153 (63.22)89 (36.78)
 Overall: ≥17 and <28; physicians on X: ≥11 and <21, n (%e)292 (67.13)143 (32.87)123 (69.49)54 (30.51)
 Overall: ≥28; physicians on X: ≥21, n (%e)359 (80.86)85 (19.14)120 (73.17)44 (26.83)
X use variables (publicly available), median (IQR)
 Time on X (years)7.80 (5.30‐11.34)6.39 (5.06‐10.11)<.001
 Average number of followers per year on X78.05 (24.96‐197.33)71.46 (24.8‐180.84).68
 Average number of people followed per year on X31.90 (11.48‐70.40)42.11 (16.8‐84.77).02
 Average number of tweets per year on X28.04 (5.22‐111.15)29.10 (5.06‐102.47).98
 Average number of media posts per year on X2.27 (0.26‐10.38)2.20 (0.26‐10.78).96
 Average number of liked posts per year on X64.49 (6.94‐318.98)112.52 (16.58‐430.1).02
Thematic content of X biography, n (%c)
Job Roles.36
  No mention98 (19.10)39 (16.32)
  Mention415 (80.90)200 (83.68)
Specialty.48
  No mention169 (32.94)85 (35.56)
  Mention344 (67.06)154 (64.44)
Parent.006
  No mention449 (87.52)191 (79.92)
  Mention64 (12.48)48 (20.08)
Spouse.77
  No mention467 (91.03)216 (90.38)
  Mention46 (8.97)23 (9.62)
Institution.56
  No mention148 (28.85)64 (26.78)
  Mention365 (71.15)175 (73.22)
Personal interests.89
  No mention444 (86.55)206 (86.19)
  Mention69 (13.45)33 (13.81)

aNot on X versus on X. The P values were calculated via Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for continuous and ordinal variables and via chi-square tests or Fisher exact tests for categorical variables, as appropriate.

bMen on X versus women on X. The P values were calculated via Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for continuous and ordinal variables and via chi-square tests or Fisher exact tests for categorical variables, as appropriate.

cColumn %: these percentages were calculated based on the total n values for the columns of this section.

dNot applicable.

eRow %: these percentages were calculated based on the total n values for the rows of this section.


In our analysis of U.S. News Best Hospitals cardiologists, the proportion of women on X was higher than the proportion of women non–X users. One possible explanation for this is that women cardiologists may be seeking novel opportunities for networking, collaboration, visibility, and/or self-promotion that are not available through traditional channels [5]. Additionally, compared to men, women cardiologists had similar time-adjusted follower counts but liked more posts. This is consistent with content language analyses demonstrating higher expected levels of friendliness in women’s professional communications, including more frequent use of exclamation points as markers of friendly interaction, which is associated with increased emotional labor [8,9]. Further, women cardiologists were more likely to mention being a parent, suggesting that women may be more comfortable with highlighting work-life integration factors. This is unsurprising, as women physicians have joined social media groups discussing issues such as parenting, maternity leave, and women leadership in medicine [5]. These observations support efforts to better understand motivational differences in social media use and impacts on potential downstream professional benefits.

Our study has several limitations, including institutional websites being subject to inaccuracy and incompleteness, currently available X data being more limited compared to prior studies, limited physician practice type information, and potential misgendering [10]. However, our findings highlight the increased presence of women cardiologists on X, with similar influence to men and higher engagement despite shorter time on X. These findings suggest an inherent desire to engage on social media for professional use, though the motivating factors driving these behavioral differences and their impact on existing gender disparities warrant further study.

Data Availability

The datasets generated or analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors' Contributions

Conceptualization: KMA, APN, MS

Data curation: MS, SK, HT, OP

Formal analysis: MS, SK

Investigation: MS, SK, HT, OP

Methodology: KMA, SK, MS, MK

Project administration: KMA, APN

Resources: KMA, SK

Software: SK

Supervision: KMA, APN

Validation: KMA, SK

Visualization: KMA, APN, MK, SK, MS

Writing – original draft: KMA, MS

Writing – review & editing: KMA, APN, MS, MK

Conflicts of Interest

KMA reports honoraria from OncLive, outside of the submitted work. The remaining authors have no disclosures.

  1. Murphy M, Callander JK, Dohan D, Grandis JR. Networking practices and gender inequities in academic medicine: women’s and men’s perspectives. EClinicalMedicine. Mar 13, 2022;45:101338. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  2. Yong CM, Balasubramanian S, Douglas PS, et al. Temporal trends in the proportion of women physician speakers at major cardiovascular conferences. Circulation. Feb 16, 2021;143(7):755-757. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  3. Shahid I, Khan MS, Sohail A, et al. Evaluation of representation of women as authors in pivotal trials supporting US Food and Drug Administration approval of novel cardiovascular drugs. JAMA Netw Open. Feb 1, 2022;5(2):e220035. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  4. Denby KJ, Szpakowski N, Silver J, Walsh MN, Nissen S, Cho L. Representation of women in cardiovascular clinical trial leadership. JAMA Intern Med. Oct 1, 2020;180(10):1382-1383. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  5. Shillcutt SK, Silver JK. Social media and advancement of women physicians. N Engl J Med. Jun 14, 2018;378(24):2342-2345. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  6. Chandra NV, Watson KE, Han JK. If you can’t see it, you can’t be it: mentorship for female internal medicine residents. JACC Case Rep. May 20, 2020;2(5):840-842. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  7. Best hospitals for cardiology, heart & vascular surgery. US News & World Report. 2024. URL: https://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/rankings/cardiology-and-heart-surgery [Accessed 2025-05-09]
  8. Waseleski C. Gender and the use of exclamation points in computer-mediated communication: an analysis of exclamations posted to two electronic discussion lists. J Comput Mediat Commun. Jul 1, 2006;11(4):1012-1024. [CrossRef]
  9. Vial AC, Cowgill CM. Heavier lies her crown: gendered patterns of leader emotional labor and their downstream effects. Front Psychol. Aug 29, 2022;13:849566. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  10. Zhu JM, Pelullo AP, Hassan S, Siderowf L, Merchant RM, Werner RM. Gender differences in Twitter use and influence among health policy and health services researchers. JAMA Intern Med. Dec 1, 2019;179(12):1726-1729. [CrossRef] [Medline]

Edited by Andrew Coristine; submitted 09.09.24; peer-reviewed by Annabelle Volgman, Ilan Kedan; final revised version received 02.04.25; accepted 14.04.25; published 04.06.25.

Copyright

© Sungjin Kim, Harper Tzou, Olivia Peony, Mitchell Kamrava, Andriana P Nikolova, Katelyn M Atkins. Originally published in JMIR Cardio (https://cardio.jmir.org), 4.6.2025.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Cardio, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://cardio.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.