Scientific Publications in International Anaesthesiology Journals: A 10-Year Survey
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Significant growth has been seen in the field of anaesthesiology in recent decades. The current geographic distribution of the publications on anaesthesia research may be different from ten years ago. We performed this literature survey to examine the national origin of articles published in international anaesthesiology journals and to evaluate their contribution to anaesthesia research. Articles published in 18 major anaesthesiology journals from 2000 to 2009 were identified from the PubMed database and the Science Citation Index. A total of 30,191 articles were published in the selected 18 journals from 2000 to 2009. The country responsible for the largest number of articles was the United States of America (29.4%), followed by the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia and France. Denmark, Switzerland and Finland had the largest number of articles per capita. Anesthesia & Analgesia published the most number of articles from 2000 to 2009, followed by Anesthesiology, Pain and the British Journal of Anaesthesia. The numbers of clinical studies and randomised controlled trials decreased markedly from 2000 to 2009.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it