What is the future of primary care research?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study one aspect of the development of primary care research from 1975 to 2003. DESIGN: Quantitative bibliometric study. SETTING: Pub Med database. SUBJECTS: Four Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden), seven countries from the rest of Europe (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK), and seven countries from the rest of the world (Australia, Canada, India, Japan, New Zealand, South Africa, and the USA). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of primary healthcare publications per million inhabitants. Percentage of publications in primary healthcare of all publications in human medicine. RESULTS: In 2003, New Zealand, the UK, and Australia were in the lead, with barely 20 primary care publications per million inhabitants, followed by Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Denmark, where the corresponding figure was around 10. A vigorous increase in publications from 1975 to 2003 was clearly seen in most of the countries. However, during the same period the proportion of publications from primary care in relation to all publications in human medicine was only moderately increased, or virtually unchanged. CONCLUSION: It is believed that primary care research has a future, and it is hoped it may even be bright. However, searching Pub Med gave but one aspect of the historical development, and in particular the comparisons between countries may be questionable.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".