The Scope, Growth, and Inequities of the Global Neurosurgery Literature: A Bibliometric Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Here, we evaluate the evolution and growth of global neurosurgery publications over time, further focusing on the contributions and impact of authors in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: In this systematic bibliometric analysis, we conducted a two-stage blinded screening process of global neurosurgery publications from 5 databases from inception through July 2021. Articles involving multi-national/multi-institutional research collaborations, detailing any area of global neurosurgery collaboration, or influencing global neurosurgery practice were included. Statistical hypothesis testing was conducted to analyze trends and hypotheses of LMIC authorship contributions. RESULTS: The number of global neurosurgery publications has soared in the last decade. Overall, authors from HIC countries were most commonly from the US (41.1%), Canada (4.0%), and the UK (3.9%), while authors from LMIC countries were most commonly from Uganda (4.2%), Tanzania (2.6%), Cameroon (1.8%), and India (1.8%). Over a quarter (28%) of publications had no LMIC authors, while only 11% had 3 or more LMIC authors. The proportion of LMIC authors (LMIC-R) was not correlated with the citation rate of individual articles or with the year of publication, and a positive trend emerged when the LMIC-R of top-publishing LMICs was individually examined and compared to the year of publication. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recent growth, the number of global neurosurgery publications arising from LMICs pales in comparison to those from HICs. Collaborative efforts between certain HICs and LMICs have likely contributed to the observed increase in LMIC author independence over time.
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 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.148 | 0.171 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".