The top-cited systematic reviews/meta-analyses in tuberculosis research
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
BACKGROUND: The top-cited systematic reviews/meta-analyses in tuberculosis research have not been identified. The objective of this study was to identify the 100 top-cited systematic reviews/meta-analyses in tuberculosis research, and to understand factors resulting in highly cited works, and establish trends in systematic reviews/meta-analyses in tuberculosis research. METHODS: The Web of Science Core Collection was searched for systematic reviews/meta-analyses on tuberculosis up to January 31, 2016. Articles were ranked by citation count and screened by 2 authors. The following information was collected and analyzed from each included study: citation of Web of Science Core Collection, author, country, year, journal, institution, page number, and reference number. RESULTS: The 100 top-cited studies were cited from 54 to 662 times and were published between 1997 and 2014. Ten authors have more than 1 study as the first author and 10 authors have more than 1 study as corresponding author. The country with the most top-cited studies was USA (n = 26). The institutions with the largest number of the studies were McGill University in Canada (n = 18). The studies were published in 32 journals, whereas 12 were published in PloS Medicine, followed by Lancet Infectious Diseases (n = 11). CONCLUSIONS: Developed countries and high-impact journals may publish more top-cited systematic review/meta-analysis in tuberculosis research.
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.
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 | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Review 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 | 0.705 | 0.660 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.070 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.014 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.017 |
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