A Bibliometric Analysis of Evaluative Medical Education Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the characteristics of medical education studies published in general and internal medicine (GIM) and medical education journals, and to analyze the accuracy of their indexing. METHOD: The authors identified the five GIM and five medical education journals that published the most articles indexed in MEDLINE as medical education during January 2001 to January 2010. They searched Ovid MEDLINE for evaluative medical education studies published in these journals during this period and classified them as quantitative or qualitative studies according to MEDLINE indexing. They also examined themes and learner levels targeted. Using a random sample of records, they assessed the accuracy of study-type indexing. RESULTS: Of 4,418 records retrieved, 3,853 (87.2%) were from medical education journals and 565 (12.3%) were from GIM journals. Qualitative studies and program evaluations were more prevalent within medical education journals, whereas GIM journals published a higher proportion of clinical trials and systematic reviews (χ=74.28, df=3, P<.001). Medical education journals had a concentration of studies targeting medical students, whereas GIM journals had a concentration targeting residents; themes were similar. The authors confirmed that 170 (56.7%) of the 300 sampled articles were correctly classified in MEDLINE as evaluative studies. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the identified evaluative studies were published in medical education journals, confirming the integrity of medical education as a specialty. Findings concerning the study types published in medical education versus GIM journals are important for medical education researchers who seek to publish outside the field's specialty 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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | MetaresearchBibliometrics Domain: Evaluation · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
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 | 0.003 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.084 | 0.231 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".