Hereditary spastic paraplegia: a novel mutation and expansion of the phenotype variability in SPG10: Table 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
range 0-307), with a median citation rate of 3 per year (range 0-48.3).A literature review of UK medical meetings during a similar time period revealed variable rates of eventual publication.Weale et al 2 found publication rates of 24-54% across four surgical meetings.A study of emergency medicine identified a publication rate of 30%, with platform presentations more likely to be published.3 Oral and maxillofacial surgery abstracts from 2001 to 2007 were published in 24% of cases, with scientific versus clinical presentations more likely to achieve eventual publication.4 Urology abstracts from 2001 to 2002 were published in 42% cases.5 Strengths of our study include surveying a large number of abstracts, a relatively long follow-up time and a robust search methodology consistent with previous work on this subject.A potential limitation is that we were unable to determine how many abstracts were submitted for full publication but eventually rejected, or never submitted at all, as this would have required extensive surveying of all authors presenting at the ABN.Our findings emphasise the importance of collaborative work in achieving high-quality research and publication.However, it is possible that this represents a surrogate of other factors, for example case reports may be likely to be single-centre work.While impact factors are a controversial metric of research quality, the majority of eventually published work following presentation at the ABN contributed to the scientific literature in the form of subsequent citations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".