MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963690373 · doi:10.2196/ijmr.2748

Military Medicine Publications: What has Happened in the Past Two Decades?

2014· article· en· W1963690373 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nirit Yavnai, Michael Huerta-Hartal, Francis B. Mimouni, Moshe Pinkert, David Dagan, Yitshak Kreiss

Bibliographic record

VenueInteractive Journal of Medical Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Conflict Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe InternetFace (sociological concept)Field (mathematics)Internet privacyMedical informationMedicinePolitical scienceData sciencePublic relationsWorld Wide WebComputer scienceFamily medicineSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Military medical personnel, like all other physician specialists, face the challenge of keeping updated with developments in their field of expertise, in view of the great amount of new medical information published in the literature. The availability of the Internet has triggered tremendous changes in publication characteristics, and in some fields, the number of publications has increased substantially. The emergence of electronic open access journals and the improvement in Web search engines has triggered a significant change in the publication processes and in accessibility of information. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to characterize the temporal trends in the number and types of publications in military medicine in the medical literature. METHODS: We searched all PubMed-registered publications from January 1, 1990 to December 31, 2010 using the keywords "military" or "army". We used the publication tag in PubMed to identify and examine major publication types. The trends were tested using the Mann-Kendall test for trend. RESULTS: Our search yielded 44,443 publications in military medicine during the evaluation period. Overall, the number of publications showed two distinct phases over time: (1) a moderate increase from 1990 to 2001 with a mean annual increase of 2.78% (r(2)=.79, P<.002), and (2) a steeper mean annual increase of 11.20% (r(2)=.96, P<.002) from 2002 to 2010. Most of the examined publication types showed a similar pattern. The proportion of high-quality-of-evidence publication types (randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses) increased from 2.91% to 8.43% of the overall military medicine publications with a mean annual incremental increase of 14.20%. These publication types demonstrated a similar dual phase pattern of increase (10.01%, r(2)=.80, P<.002 for 1990-2001 and 20.66%, r(2)=.88, P<.002 for 2002-2010). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that over the past twenty years, scholarly work in the field of military medicine has shown a significant increase in volume, particularly among high quality publication types. However, practice guidelines remain rare, and meta-analyses are still limited in number.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.339
GPT teacher head0.626
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInteractive Journal of Medical ResearchSame topicHealth and Conflict StudiesFrench-language works237,207