Glaucoma Publication Trends in Leading General Ophthalmology Journals During the Past Quarter Century: Where Are the Clinical Trials?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PRCIS: During the past quarter century, the rate of glaucoma-related publication in general ophthalmology journals increased due to higher representation in "experimentally oriented" journals. The rate of glaucoma randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) articles decreased during the same time period. PURPOSE: To evaluate trends in rate of glaucoma publications in leading general ophthalmology journals over the past quarter century. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Q1 ophthalmology journals Web sites were reviewed. Only journals not limited to certain subspecialty were considered "general" and included in the analysis. In addition we categorized journals orientation as either "clinical" or "experimental." The PubMed search engine was used to collect publications from the selected journals between January 1, 1995 to December 31, 2019. Publications captured by "glaucoma" or "ocular hypertension" filters were considered glaucoma related. The fraction of glaucoma articles out of total number of articles within each year for each journal was calculated. A linear mixed effects model was applied to detect trends in glaucoma publication rates during the study period. RESULTS: Eight journals were included: 4 "clinically oriented" and 4 "experimentally oriented." The PubMed search yielded 72,750 publications, of which 9329 (12.8%) considered "glaucoma related." Percentage of glaucoma publications remained stable within "clinically oriented" journals, and significantly increased within "experimentally oriented" journals (annual change of 0.3%, P<0.001). The number of glaucoma-related RCTs decreased significantly in each (annual change of -0.21% and -0.13%, respectively, P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: There has been a significant rise in the rates of glaucoma publications in "experimentally oriented" journals, while their representation in "clinically oriented" journals remained stable over the past quarter century. This change might be due to the increasing efforts to develop more advanced methods for evaluation and treatment in glaucoma, although still unable to address clinical demands. The decrease in glaucoma-related RCT articles might indicate reduced funding for such 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.
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 | 0.023 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.035 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; 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".