MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403750703 · doi:10.1097/upj.0000000000000742

Industry-Sponsored Research Funding to Urologists in the United States Between 2014 and 2022

2024· article· en· W4403750703 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueUrology Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalUniversité de MontréalMcGill University Health CentreWestern UniversityMcMaster UniversityPublic Health OntarioUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicineLibrary scienceGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Urologists face challenges in obtaining public research funding, leading to increasing reliance on the industry for research support. This study aimed to examine the extent and trends in industry-sponsored research payments to urologists from 2014 to 2022 in the United States. METHODS: We identified all US urologists using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services National Plan and Provider Enumeration System database and extracted their industry-sponsored research payments data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Database. We performed descriptive analyses of the payments data. RESULTS: < .001) in value. There was no significant trend in the number of urologists receiving research payments. CONCLUSIONS: Industry-sponsored research payments to urologists are substantial and have increased in both payment amount and number 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.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.333
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.688
GPT teacher head0.660
Teacher spread0.028 · 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