Skip to main content
. 2018 Jul 16;115(31):7943–7948. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1800615115

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

Boxplots of new project application volume, funding rates, and score percentiles, by gender and cohort. Markers indicate means; bars indicate medians. Red cohort labels indicate statistically significant gender differences (P ≤ 0.05, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, two-tailed). Outliers are not shown. (A) Women submitted slightly fewer new applications per year than men overall and within each cohort (1991–1995: women, n = 2,192; men, n = 5,539; W = 6,383,318, P < 0.001; 1996–2000: women, n = 2,436; men, n = 5,876; W = 7,802,511, P < 0.001; 2001–2005: women, n = 2,690; men, n = 6,068; W = 8,868,382, P < 0.001; 2006–2010: women, n = 3,342 men, n = 6,627; W = 11,865,699, P < 0.001). (B) While average funding rates were no different between the genders overall, women had a slightly lower funding rate in the 1991–1995 cohort (women, n = 1,551; men, n = 4,032; W = 3,235,387, P = 0.04). (C) While women and men’s average score percentiles were not statistically different overall, in the 2006–2010 cohort, women scored slightly better on average than men (women, n = 1,501; men, n = 3,175; W = 2,487,779, P = 0.02).