Insights from full-text analyses of the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analysis of the content of medical journals enables us to frame the shifting scientific, material, ethical, and epistemic underpinnings of medicine over time, including today. Leveraging a dataset comprised of nearly half-a-million articles published in the Journal of the American Medical Association ( JAMA ) and the New England Journal of Medicine ( NEJM ) over the past 200 years, we (a) highlight the evolution of medical language, and its manifestations in shifts of usage and meaning, (b) examine traces of the medical profession’s changing self-identity over time, reflected in its shifting ethical and epistemic underpinnings, (c) analyze medicine’s material underpinnings and how we describe where medicine is practiced, (d) demonstrate how the occurrence of specific disease terms within the journals reflects the changing burden of disease itself over time and the interests and perspectives of authors and editors, and (e) showcase how this dataset can allow us to explore the evolution of modern medical ideas and further our understanding of how modern disease concepts came to be, and of the retained legacies of prior embedded values.
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 | 0.018 | 0.170 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.040 | 0.043 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
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".