Top Citations of Pediatric Emergency Medicine Publications in the Emergency Medicine Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to identify and analyze the 100 most frequently cited journal articles pertaining to the field of pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) and published in emergency medicine (EM) peer-reviewed literature. METHODS: The 3 databases, Scopus Library, Google Scholar, and Web of Science, were subjected to a search by topic, keyword, and publication journal to identify the 100 most frequently cited articles addressing PEM issues in the EM literature. Our search included articles published beginning in 1983 and ending in 2016. Median citation frequency, study topics within the specialty of PEM, years of publication, and countries of origin were each compiled and analyzed. Mean citation frequencies were used to rank the articles, which accounted for differences in the results among the 3 databases. Once organized into a list of the 100 most often cited articles in PEM, those with an outcome of the same mean citation frequency were ranked in alphabetical order, according to the initial letter of last name of the first author of the publication. RESULTS: A ranking was created of the 100 most frequently cited articles in pediatric emergency medicine by the mean number of citations. Citation counts ranged from a high of 249 to a low of 71, with a median frequency of 101. The United States had 92 articles on the list, whereas the remainder was comprised of the following countries: Australia (3), Canada (3), Germany (1), and Spain (1). The most common topic areas (and their numbers) noted were related to resuscitation (23) and anesthesia (22). The most frequently cited 100 articles were all published between the years 1983 and 2010. Top publication years (and number of articles) included 2000 (11), 2002 (8), and 2003 (8). The years ranging from 1993 to 2005 covered 69% of published articles. Journals of publications (and article counts) were Annals of Emergency Medicine (69), Pediatric Emergency Care (15), Academic Emergency Medicine (12), and Resuscitation (4). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis provides a review of citation frequency of top-cited PEM articles published in EM journals. This determines the influence of these PEM publications on the EM specialty. The importance of education on resuscitation and anesthesia topics in PEM was evident. Most of the articles were published more than 10 to 15 years ago, indicating that they could be considered landmarks in the subspecialty of PEM. This signifies their importance to other authors in this field, who chose to cite them as having created a significant impact on their own publications.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.066 | 0.092 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".