Classic Citations in Main Primary Health Care Journals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of a publication in a particular medical area is reflected by the number of times the article is included as a citation. It is not known, however, which articles are cited the most in primary care journals. In our study, we aimed to identify the 100 most cited articles in primary care medicine and analyze their characteristics.We searched the Science Citation Index Expanded for articles published in 18 primary care journals using the subject category "Primary health care." We identified 100 articles in primary health care that were the most cited. We analyzed the characteristics of these articles using the title, number of citations, citation density, year of publication, journal source, decade published, country of origin, institution, author names, and type of article.The 100 articles that were cited the most were published between the years 1977 and 2009. The 1990s decade was the most productive decade. The number of citations ranged from 117 to 775. The articles were published in 9 journals and the journal with the largest number of most cited articles (n = 33) was the Journal of Family Practice. This was followed by the British Journal of General Practice (n = 17) and the journal Family Practice (n = 16). The United States was the most productive country (n = 59); the United Kingdom was next (n = 25) and this was followed by Canada (n = 5) and The Netherlands (n = 5). The most popular article type was a review article and this was followed by a qualitative study and then methodological study.Our study provides insight into the historical development of primary care studies, based on citations, and provides the foundation for further investigations.
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 | 0.127 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".