The geography of ASCO Annual Meetings: Nationality of abstracts and recent trends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e17567 Background: Although there have been previous analyses of various aspects of studies presented at ASCO Annual Meetings, to our knowledge no attempt has been made to investigate the nationality of abstracts. Methods: After stratification into three categories of presentation ([1] oral, including plenary and all oral presentations; [2] posters, including poster discussions; and [3] publication only [PO]), we took a random sample of 10% of the abstracts from 6 years, and assigned them nationalities using authors’ affiliations. For multinational studies, we assigned nationality following an algorithm developed for the study. Importantly, we did not appraise abstract quality or results. Results: We analyzed 2,206 of the 22,045 abstracts appearing in the Proceedings and LBA Booklets for 2001–2003 and 2006–2008. Categories were oral/poster/PO in 7.8/49.2/43.0%, and study phase (as declared by authors) was I/II/III/other, unknown or not applicable in 10.8/16.5/3.3/69.4% of abstracts. There were 332 (15.0%) multinational studies, and 1,866 (85.0%) were uninational (969 multicenter, and 905 from a single institution). The top 15 countries with higher % of studies were the US (49.0%), Italy (7.5%), Japan (5.9%), Germany (5.3%), France (4.3%), Spain (3.5%), Canada (3.4%), the UK (3.3%), South Korea (1.8%), China/Hong Kong (1.4%), Brazil (1.1%), India (1.0%), Greece and Belgium (0.9% each), and Turkey (0.8%). Exploratory analyses showed a temporal increase in multinational studies (p = 0.003), no temporal trend in the proportion of abstracts with US nationality (p = 0.315), and a higher proportion of oral and poster presentations for multinational studies (p < 0.001) and for abstracts with US nationality (p < 0.001). Conclusions: This bibliometric analysis provides a geographic overview of research presented at ASCO Annual Meetings and suggests that nearly half of all abstracts are from the US, with 20% of the 71 countries represented producing nearly 90% of all abstracts accepted for the meetings. Multinational collaboration seems to be increasing in clinical cancer research. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
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 | 0.038 | 0.153 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.052 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.004 |
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".