An Analysis of Altmetrics in Emergency Medicine
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: Alternative-level metrics (Altmetrics) are a new method to assess the sharing and spread of scientific knowledge. The primary objective of this study was to describe the traditional metrics and Altmetric scores of the 50 most frequently cited articles published in emergency medicine (EM) journals. Since many articles related to EM are published in other journals, the secondary aim of this study was to describe the Altmetric scores of the most frequently cited articles relevant to EM in other biomedical journals. METHODS: A structured search of the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science version of the Science Citation Index Expanded was conducted. The 200 most frequently cited articles in the top 10 EM journals (2011 Journal Citation Report) were identified. The 200 most frequently cited articles from the rest of the medical literature, matching a predefined list of keywords relevant to the specialty of EM, were identified. Two authors reviewed the lists of citations for relevance to EM and a consensus approach was used to arrive at the final lists of the top 50 cited articles. The Altmetric scores for the top 50 cited articles in EM and other journals were determined. Descriptive statistics and Spearman correlation were performed. RESULTS: The highest Altmetric score for EM articles was 25.0; the mean (±SD) was 1.9 (±5.0). The EM journal with the highest mean article Altmetric score was Resuscitation. The main clinical areas shared for articles from EM articles were trauma (mean ± SD = 11.0 ± 15.6, median = 11.0) and cardiac arrest (mean ± SD = 2.7 ± 5.8, median = 0). The highest Altmetric score for other journals was 176.0 (mean ± SD = 23.3 ± 40.8). The other journal with the highest mean article Altmetric score was the New England Journal of Medicine. The main clinical areas shared for articles were critical care (mean ± SD score = 36.5 ± 47.4, median = 36.5), sepsis (mean ± SD = 24.6 ± 48.8, median = 12.0), cardiology (mean ± SD = 19.2 ± 35.6, median = 7.0), and infectious diseases (mean ± SD = 17.0 ± 12.7, median = 17.0). Spearman correlation demonstrated weakly positive correlation between citation counts and Altmetric scores for EM articles and other journals. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first analysis of Altmetric scores for the top cited articles in EM. We demonstrated that there is a mild correlation between citation counts and Altmetric scores for the top papers in EM and other biomedical journals. We also demonstrated that there is a gap between the sharing of the top articles in EM journals and those related to EM in other biomedical journals. Future research to explore this relationship and its temporal trends will benefit the understanding of the reach and dissemination of EM research within the scientific community and society in general.
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,017 | 0,128 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,030 | 0,037 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».