MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2262519858 · doi:10.1148/radiol.2016151384

Is There an Association between STARD Statement Adherence and Citation Rate?

2016· article· en· W2262519858 on OpenAlexaff
Marc Dilauro, Matthew D. F. McInnes, Daniël A. Korevaar, Christian B. van der Pol, William Petrcich, Stefan Walther, Jeffrey Quon, Darya Kurowecki, Patrick M. Bossuyt

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCitationImpact factorCochrane LibraryConfidence intervalDiagnostic accuracyInterquartile rangeMedical physicsInternal medicineLibrary scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose To determine if adherence to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) is associated with postpublication citation rates. Materials and Methods A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify published articles that have evaluated adherence of diagnostic accuracy studies to the STARD statement. These were included if the number of STARD items reported ("STARD result") could be obtained for each evaluated study. The date of publication, journal impact factor, and citation rate (citations per day) were extracted for the diagnostic accuracy studies. Univariate correlations were performed to identify any association between STARD result, impact factor, and citation rate. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to explore the effect of impact factor on postpublication citation rates. Results The authors were able to obtain the STARD results for 1002 "original" diagnostic accuracy studies from eight different "STARD evaluation" articles. The median impact factor was 3.97 (interquartile range [IQR]: 2.32-6.21), the median STARD result was 15 of 25 items (IQR: 12-18), and the median citation rate was 0.007 citations per day (IQR: 0.0032-0.017). The authors identified a weak positive correlation between STARD result and citation rate (r = 0.096; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.034, 0.157), a moderate positive correlation between impact factor and citation rate (r = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.535, 0.617), and a weak positive correlation between impact factor and STARD result (r = 0.13; 95% CI: 0.064, 0.186). Multivariate analysis accounting for journal clustering effects revealed that, when impact factor is partialed out, the positive correlation between citation rate and STARD result does not persist (r = 0.029; 95% CI: -0.033, 0.091). Conclusion There is a positive correlation between completeness of reporting, as evaluated with STARD, and citation rate as well as impact factor. When adjusted for impact factor, the positive correlation between completeness of reporting and citation rate does not persist. (©) RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.058
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0580.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.694
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.169 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiologySame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207