EVALUATION OF THE CONVERSION RATE OF ABSTRACTS AND “E-POSTERS” FROM THE 2016 CANADIAN ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOCIATION CONGRESS INTO SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The publication of scientific research work is essential to disseminate the results observed and to benefit the scientific community. It also makes it possible to obtain local, national, and even global recognition. It also makes it possible to obtain funding, essential to carrying out future work. Many national scientific societies have studied the publication rate of papers presented at their annual meetings. There is currently no data regarding the conversion rate of an oral communication into an original article for the Canadian Orthopedic Association. We therefore conducted a study: to evaluate 1) the publication rate of communications accepted at the 2016 COA congress in Quebec City; and to describe 2) the characteristics of the articles influencing their publication. This bibliometric study included the 334 abstracts accepted for the annual conference of the COA in Quebec in 2016 (minimum 6 years of follow-up). Publication status was investigated using electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and CENTRAL between July and October 2022. All authors listed at the time of abstract and e-poster submission were identified and researched independently to confirm publication of the work presented at the 2016 COA. Time between communication and publication was censed. The quality of the publication was defined using the impact factor of the journals. The abstracts covered topics of orthopedics in 270 cases (80.8%), traumatology in 33 cases (9.9%), oncology in 9 cases (2.7%), basic research in 18 cases (5.4%) and teaching in 4 cases (1.20%). It was adult topics in 282 cases (88,9%) and pediatric topics in 35 cases (11,1%). The most importants subtopics was hip (82 cases, 25%), knee (70 cases, 21,1%) and shoulder (42 cases, 12,7%). The format of the scientific work was an oral communication in 205 cases (61.2%), and a “e-poster” in 129 cases (38.6%). The overall publication rate was 56%. Oral communications represented 68% of publications (n=139) and e-posters represented 54% (n=70). Oral communications were significantly more published than e-posters (p<0,01). The median delay between communication and publication in a referenced scientific article was 13 months [0;57]. Subgroup analysis showed a more favorable publication rate for prospective (n=101) versus retrospective studies (n=75) (p=0,025), international versus national (p=0,02) with significant versus non-significant results (p=0,005). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses had a significantly higher publication rate than case reports. Work on orthopedics was more published than other themes, particularly traumatology. The publication rate of oral communications and e-posters from the 2016 COA annual conference in Quebec City after 6 years is higher than other studies of this type. The impact factor of the journals publishing these articles confirms the quality of this conference.
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 | 0.084 | 0.408 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.058 | 0.066 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".