The intellectual contribution of laboratory medicine professionals to research papers on laboratory medicine topics published in high-impact general medicine journals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An author is generally regarded as an individual "who has made substantial intellectual academic contributions to a published study". However, the extent of the contribution that laboratory medicine professionals have made as authors of research papers in high-impact medical journals remains unclear. METHODS: From 1 January 2004 to 31 March 2009, 4837 original research articles appeared in the: New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA and BMJ. Using authorship as an indicator of intellectual contribution, we analyzed articles that included laboratory medicine parameters in their titles in an observational cross-sectional study. We also extracted data regarding radiological topics that were published during the same time within the same journals. RESULTS: Out of 481 articles concerning laboratory medicine topics, 380 provided information on the affiliations of the authors. At least one author from an institution within the field of laboratory medicine was listed in 212 articles (55.8%). Out of 3943 co-authors, only 756 (19.2%) were affiliated with laboratory medicine institutions. Authors from laboratory medicine institutions were listed as the first, last or corresponding authors in 99 articles (26.1%). The comparative proportions for author affiliation from 55 radiology articles were significantly higher, as 72.7% (p=0.026) of articles and 24.8% (p=0.001) of authors indicated an affiliation with a radiology institution. Radiology professionals from 72.7% of the articles were listed as either the first, last or corresponding authors (p<0.0001). The subgroup analysis revealed that laboratory medicine professionals from North America were significantly less frequently involved as co-authors than were their colleagues from Europe (p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Laboratory medicine professionals are underrepresented as co-authors in laboratory medicine studies appearing in high-impact general medicine journals.
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 | 0.045 | 0.201 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".