Inferring gender from first names: Comparing the accuracy of Genderize, Gender API, and the gender R package on authors of diverse nationality.

PLOS digital health Pub Date : 2024-10-29 eCollection Date: 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000456
Alexander D VanHelene, Ishaani Khatri, C Beau Hilton, Sanjay Mishra, Ece D Gamsiz Uzun, Jeremy L Warner
{"title":"Inferring gender from first names: Comparing the accuracy of Genderize, Gender API, and the gender R package on authors of diverse nationality.","authors":"Alexander D VanHelene, Ishaani Khatri, C Beau Hilton, Sanjay Mishra, Ece D Gamsiz Uzun, Jeremy L Warner","doi":"10.1371/journal.pdig.0000456","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Meta-researchers commonly leverage tools that infer gender from first names, especially when studying gender disparities. However, tools vary in their accuracy, ease of use, and cost. The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy and cost of the commercial software Genderize and Gender API, and the open-source gender R package. Differences in binary gender prediction accuracy between the three services were evaluated. Gender prediction accuracy was tested on a multi-national dataset of 32,968 gender-labeled clinical trial authors. Additionally, two datasets from previous studies with 5779 and 6131 names, respectively, were re-evaluated with modern implementations of Genderize and Gender API. The gender inference accuracy of Genderize and Gender API were compared, both with and without supplying trialists' country of origin in the API call. The accuracy of the gender R package was only evaluated without supplying countries of origin. The accuracy of Genderize, Gender API, and the gender R package were defined as the percentage of correct gender predictions. Accuracy differences between methods were evaluated using McNemar's test. Genderize and Gender API demonstrated 96.6% and 96.1% accuracy, respectively, when countries of origin were not supplied in the API calls. Genderize and Gender API achieved the highest accuracy when predicting the gender of German authors with accuracies greater than 98%. Genderize and Gender API were least accurate with South Korean, Chinese, Singaporean, and Taiwanese authors, demonstrating below 82% accuracy. Genderize can provide similar accuracy to Gender API while being 4.85x less expensive. The gender R package achieved below 86% accuracy on the full dataset. In the replication studies, Genderize and gender API demonstrated better performance than in the original publications. Our results indicate that Genderize and Gender API achieve similar accuracy on a multinational dataset. The gender R package is uniformly less accurate than Genderize and Gender API.</p>","PeriodicalId":74465,"journal":{"name":"PLOS digital health","volume":"3 10","pages":"e0000456"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11521266/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLOS digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000456","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Meta-researchers commonly leverage tools that infer gender from first names, especially when studying gender disparities. However, tools vary in their accuracy, ease of use, and cost. The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy and cost of the commercial software Genderize and Gender API, and the open-source gender R package. Differences in binary gender prediction accuracy between the three services were evaluated. Gender prediction accuracy was tested on a multi-national dataset of 32,968 gender-labeled clinical trial authors. Additionally, two datasets from previous studies with 5779 and 6131 names, respectively, were re-evaluated with modern implementations of Genderize and Gender API. The gender inference accuracy of Genderize and Gender API were compared, both with and without supplying trialists' country of origin in the API call. The accuracy of the gender R package was only evaluated without supplying countries of origin. The accuracy of Genderize, Gender API, and the gender R package were defined as the percentage of correct gender predictions. Accuracy differences between methods were evaluated using McNemar's test. Genderize and Gender API demonstrated 96.6% and 96.1% accuracy, respectively, when countries of origin were not supplied in the API calls. Genderize and Gender API achieved the highest accuracy when predicting the gender of German authors with accuracies greater than 98%. Genderize and Gender API were least accurate with South Korean, Chinese, Singaporean, and Taiwanese authors, demonstrating below 82% accuracy. Genderize can provide similar accuracy to Gender API while being 4.85x less expensive. The gender R package achieved below 86% accuracy on the full dataset. In the replication studies, Genderize and gender API demonstrated better performance than in the original publications. Our results indicate that Genderize and Gender API achieve similar accuracy on a multinational dataset. The gender R package is uniformly less accurate than Genderize and Gender API.

从名字推断性别:比较 Genderize、Gender API 和性别 R 软件包对不同国籍作者的准确性。
元研究人员通常会利用从名字推断性别的工具,尤其是在研究性别差异时。然而,这些工具在准确性、易用性和成本方面各不相同。本研究旨在比较商业软件 Genderize 和 Gender API 以及开源性别 R 软件包的准确性和成本。评估了三种服务在二元性别预测准确性方面的差异。性别预测准确性在一个包含 32968 名性别标签临床试验作者的多国数据集上进行了测试。此外,还使用 Genderize 和 Gender API 的现代实现方法重新评估了以前研究中的两个数据集,这两个数据集分别包含 5779 和 6131 个名字。在 API 调用中提供和不提供试验者原籍国的情况下,对 Genderize 和 Gender API 的性别推断准确性进行了比较。仅在不提供原籍国的情况下评估了性别 R 软件包的准确性。Genderize、Gender API 和性别 R 软件包的准确性被定义为性别预测正确率。使用 McNemar 检验评估了不同方法之间的准确性差异。当在 API 调用中不提供原籍国时,Genderize 和 Gender API 的准确率分别为 96.6% 和 96.1%。当预测德国作者的性别时,Genderize 和 Gender API 的准确率最高,准确率超过 98%。在预测韩国、中国、新加坡和台湾作者的性别时,Genderize 和 Gender API 的准确率最低,准确率低于 82%。Genderize 可以提供与 Gender API 相似的准确率,而成本却低 4.85 倍。性别 R 软件包在全部数据集上的准确率低于 86%。在复制研究中,Genderize 和 Gender API 的表现优于原始出版物。我们的结果表明,Genderize 和 Gender API 在多国数据集上达到了相似的准确率。性别 R 软件包的准确性一律低于 Genderize 和 Gender API。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信