Presentation at the Canadian Association of Radiologists Annual General Meeting Is Associated With Higher Likelihood of Publication of Canadian Radiology Resident Research Day Presentations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Determine how many radiology resident research day projects are presented at the Canadian Association of Radiologists Annual Scientific Meeting (CAR ASM) and if presentation at the CAR ASM is associated with increased rates of publication. Methods: A database of radiology resident presentations from 2012 to 2017 research days at seven Canadian radiology programs was utilized. Each presenting resident was searched for in 2011–2019 CAR ASM books of abstracts to identify all CAR ASM presentations both related to and separate from their research day projects. These presentations were matched with resident research day presentations and their publication status. Descriptive statistical analysis and calculation of relative risk (RR) between publication of research day projects and presentation at CAR was performed. Results: 208 residents presented 288 projects at internal research days. 93 of the 208 residents had a total of 195 presentations at CAR (mean .94 +/− 1.91 SD). 36 of the 288 (13%) research day projects were presented at a CAR ASM, of which 18/36 (50%) were published. 83 of the 252 (32%) research day projects not presented at CAR were published. CAR ASM presentation of a research day project was associated with an increased rate of publication (RR 1.537 P=.0396). There was no significant association between research day project publication and unrelated CAR ASM presentations (P=.275). Most research day projects both presented at CAR ASM and published (56%) were in the Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal. Conclusion: CAR ASM presentation of research day projects is associated with an increased rate of publication.
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 | 0.009 | 0.142 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".