Factors Associated with Publication Following Presentation at a Transplantation Meeting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Full publication of abstracts presented at scientific meetings ranges from 25-74%. To determine the rate and factors associated with publication in organ transplantation, we examined abstracts presented at the American Transplant Congress in May 2000. Of 1147 abstracts, 607 (53%) achieved full publication at 4.5 years (mean 1.32 +/- 0.88 years). Fifty-nine percent (357/607) were published in three transplantation journals. For randomized trials, the proportion published was 61%. On multivariate analysis, industry sponsorship (OR 1.78; 95% CI 1.04-3.06), basic science research (OR 1.68; 95% CI 1.32-2.14), non-American center (OR 1.67; 95% CI 1.28-2.20) and oral presentation (OR 1.36; 95% CI 1.07-1.73) were independent predictors of full publication. Nearly half of all abstracts presented at a transplantation meeting remain unpublished. This finding needs to be considered when interpreting systematic reviews in the field of transplantation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.069 | 0.337 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.004 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".