Publication, citations, and impact factors of leading investigators in critical care medicine.
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Critical care medicine research is reported in major medical journals that can be accessed via computerized search engines such as PubMed (National Library of Medicine) or Web of Science (Thomson ISI [Institute for Scientific Information]). The crediting of report citations to specific journals or individuals is a rapidly developing and highly controversial evaluative process. METHODS: We conducted a citation analysis to measure the research and publication accomplishments of critical care medicine investigators, by tallying their numbers of published reports and numbers of citations to their reports. Major investigators were identified from the author indexes of major critical care medicine publications. From the Web of Science the number of publications and citations of their works were determined for 224 investigators for the period 1997 through August 2003. We calculated the individual researcher's "impact factor" by dividing the number of citations (made by other researchers to a given researcher's reports) by the number of articles that researcher had published. To estimate which countries are producing the most research on mechanical ventilation, we studied the abstract books from the 2001, 2002, and 2003 American Thoracic Society annual international conferences and tallied the number of posters (pertaining to mechanical ventilation) from the various countries. We then calculated a "country factor" as the number of posters per million population of the source country. RESULTS: We considered 44, 576 citations in 3,755 publications. Using criteria selected to recognize original works, J L Vincent published the greatest number of reports (129). M A Matthay received the most citations (2,056). G U Meduri had the highest impact factor (25.32). There was a balance between the number of leading investigators from Europe and North America. Relative to its population size, Canada warrants leadership acknowledgement in critical care medicine, considering its number of leading investigators and poster presentations. CONCLUSIONS: From criteria selected to attribute original work to specific authors we identified 20 leading critical care medicine investigators, as measured by number of publications, citations, and impact factors. We also report a country factor based on posters (on mechanical ventilation) presented at the 2001-2003 international conferences of the American Thoracic Society.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle