MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210853176 · doi:10.3389/fmed.2021.801277

Research Hotspots and Trend Exploration on the Clinical Translational Outcome of Simulation-Based Medical Education: A 10-Year Scientific Bibliometric Analysis From 2011 to 2021

2022· article· en· W4210853176 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shun Yao, Ya‐Bin Tang, Chenyue Yi, Yao Xiao

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBibliometricsTranslational researchOutcome (game theory)MedicineMedical educationPsychologyLibrary scienceComputer sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background In recent decades, an increasing number of studies have focused on the clinical translational effect of simulation-based medical education (SBME). However, few scientific bibliometric studies have analyzed the research hotspots and publication trends. This study aimed to investigate research hotspots and future direction in the clinical translational outcome of SBME via bibliometrics. Method Relevant publications on the clinical translational outcomes of SBME from 2011 to 2021 were identified and retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC). Software including VOSviewer (1.6.17) and CiteSpace (5.8R3) and a platform ( bibliometric.com ) were employed to conduct bibliographic and visualized analysis on the literature. Results A total of 1,178 publications were enrolled. An increasing number of publications were observed in the past decades from 48 in 2011 to 175 in 2021. The United States accounted for the largest number of publications (488, 41.4%) and citations (10,432); the University of Toronto and Northwestern University were the leading institutions. Academic Medicine was the most productive journal concerning this field. McGaghie W C and Konge L were the most influential authors in this area. The hot topic of the translational outcome of SBME was divided into 3 stages, laboratory phase, individual skill improvement, and patient outcome involving both technical skills and non-technical skills. Translational research of comprehensive impact and collateral outcomes could be obtained in the future. Conclusion From the overall trend of 10 years of research, we can see that the research is roughly divided into three phases, from laboratory stage, individual skill improvement to the patient outcomes, and comprehensive impacts such as skill retention and collateral effect as cost-effectiveness is a major trend of future research. More objective evaluation measurement should be designed to assess the diverse impact and further meta-analysis and randomized controlled trials are needed to provide more clinical evidence of SBME as translational science.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0450.077
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.235
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in MedicineSame topicSimulation-Based Education in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207