The top 100 cited articles in urology: An update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In this paper, we identify and analyze the top 100 cited articles in urology since 1965 and assess changes in the top 100 since 2007.Methods: We selected highest impact journals in both urological and general medicine journals from the 2011 edition of Journal Citation Reports: Science edition. We identified and analyzed the 100 most cited articles using the Science Citation Index Expanded (1965-present).Results: The top 100 articles were cited a mean of 892 times (range: 529-2088) and published between 1966 and 2009, with 21 published since 2000. In 2012, 19 new articles appeared in the updated top 100 cited articles. Also, 16 journals were represented, led by the New England Journal of Medicine (n=36), the Journal of Urology (n=16) and the Lancet (n=12). In total, 81 articles were published from North America (USA=77, Canada=4). From the United States, the following institutes were among the top 5 represented: Johns Hopkins University (n=12), Harvard University, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre, National Institute of Health and Washington University (all 5). Only one institute outside the United States published more than one article in the top 100 (Institut Gustave Roussy, France). Nine urologists were first authors of 2 or more articles. Oncology (n=54) and transplantation (n=22) were the most common subspecialties represented.Conclusion: It is important to acknowledge the top cited articles as they mark key topics and advances in urology. There has been a 19% change in the top 100 cited articles in the past 5 years. Oncology and transplantation remain the most highly cited topics.
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 | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.065 | 0.073 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".