Measuring the Uptake of Pharmacoepidemiologic Research Through Qualitative Analysis of Citations: A Case Study from a Canadian Network of Researchers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health research, including drug safety research, is communicated, in part, by being cited; understanding these citations can help determine its reach and impact. We analyzed the uptake of a Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies study of the heart failure risk of incretin-based drugs using quantitative and qualitative bibliometric approaches. A Scopus® search (2016–2020) returned 127 citing articles, mostly single studies and review articles. Many were also high impact journals, with intended audiences of other researchers, policy makers, and practitioners. Using the Becker Model, 93% contributed to “advancing knowledge.” Research impact can be difficult to establish. We have demonstrated one comprehensive approach that can be further adapted and automated; researchers and funders need to determine the best indicators, tools, and frameworks to use that are feasible and context relevant.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it