Scholarly Productivity Evaluation of KL2 Scholars Using Bibliometrics and Federal Follow-on Funding: Cross-Institution Study

Global trends and hotspots of ChatGPT in medical research: a bibliometric and visualized study

Objective

With the rapid advancement of Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) in medical research, our study aimed to identify global trends and focal points in this domain.

Method

All publications on ChatGPT in medical research were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) by Clarivate Analytics from January 1, 2023, to January 31, 2024. The research trends and focal points were visualized and analyzed using VOSviewer and CiteSpace.

Results

A total of 1,239 publications were collected and analyzed. The USA contributed the largest number of publications (458, 37.145%) with the highest total citation frequencies (2,461) and the largest H-index. Harvard University contributed the highest number of publications (33) among all full-time institutions. The Cureus Journal of Medical Science published the most ChatGPT-related research (127, 10.30%). Additionally, Wiwanitkit V contributed the majority of publications in this field (20). "Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML)," "Education and Training," "Healthcare Applications," and "Data Analysis and Technology" emerged as the primary clusters of keywords. These areas are predicted to remain hotspots in future research in this field.

Conclusion

Overall, this study signifies the interdisciplinary nature of ChatGPT research in medicine, encompassing AI and ML technologies, education and training initiatives, diverse healthcare applications, and data analysis and technology advancements. These areas are expected to remain at the forefront of future research, driving continued innovation and progress in the field of ChatGPT in medical research.

Evaluating the impact of a CTSA program from 2008 to 2021 through bibliometrics, social network analysis, and altmetrics

Introduction

We evaluate a CTSA program hub by applying bibliometrics, social network analysis (SNA), and altmetrics and examine the changes in research productivity, citation impact, research collaboration, and CTSA-supported research topics since our pilot study in 2017.

Methods

The sampled data included North Carolina Translational and Clinical Science Institute (NC TraCS)-supported publications produced between September 2008 and March 2021. We applied measures and metrics from bibliometrics, SNA, and altmetrics to the dataset. In addition, we analyzed research topics and correlations between different metrics.

Results

1154 NC TraCS-supported publications generated over 53,560 citation counts by April 2021. The average cites per year and the relative citation ratio (RCR) mean of these publications improved from 33 and 2.26 in 2017 to 48 and 2.58 in 2021. The number of involved UNC units in the most published authors' collaboration network increased from 7 (2017) to 10 (2021). NC TraCS-supported co-authorship involved 61 NC organizations. PlumX metrics identified articles with the highest altmetrics scores. About 96% NC TraCS-supported publications have above the average SciVal Topic Prominence Percentile; the average approximate potential to translate of the included publication was 54.2%; and 177 publications addressed health disparity issues. Bibliometric measures (e.g., citation counts, RCR) and PlumX metrics (i.e., Citations, Captures, and Social-Media) are positively correlated (p < .05).

Conclusion

Bibliometrics, SNA, and altmetrics offer distinctive but related perspectives to examine CTSA research performance and longitudinal growth, especially at the individual program hub level. These perspectives can help CTSAs build program foci.

Growing the next generation of trauma surgeon-scientists: Reflections on 20 years of research investment

INTRODUCTION

The Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma mission includes fostering research and providing career development opportunities. Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma has awarded for 20 years a research scholarship to a promising young investigator. The research mentorship efforts were expanded 5 years ago with the INVEST-C Hack-a-thon. INVEST-C provides an intensive, short-term engagement to propel junior faculty toward establishing research independence. This study investigates the impact of these programs on academic productivity.

METHODS

Pubmed records, National Institutes of Health (NIH) Reporter data, and SCOPUS h-index were acquired for all scholarship (SCH) awardees from 2002 to 2021 (n = 20) and all INVEST-C (INV) participants (2017-2020, n = 19). Current type of practice, total number of funding awards, and timing of first award were ascertained. INVEST-C participants were also surveyed on an annual basis to track their progress. Medians (interquartile range [IQR]) are reported and compared (analysis of variance).

RESULTS

Median publications (PUBs) of SCH awardees were 56 (IQR, 33-88), h-index was 16 (IQR, 12-21), and 25% of awardees have ≥1 NIH grant since their SCH. Among the last 10 awardees with a minimum of 2 years from SCH, 40% have received an NIH award compared with a mean NIH funding rate of 18.5% over the same period. For those remaining in academics (90% SCH), PUBs were higher for those >5 years (66 [IQR, 51-115]) versus <5 years from their SCH (33 [22-59]; p = 0.05), but there was no difference in h-index (16 [IQR, 14-25] vs. 15 [9-19], p = NS). Comparing the most recent 5 years of SCH to INV group, there was no difference in academic productivity as measured by total PUBs (SCH, 33 [IQR, 22-59] vs. INV, 34 [IQR, 18-44]; p = 0.7) or h-index (INV, 9 [IQR, 5-14]; p = 0.1). However, no attendee held research funding before INV, but 31.6% (6 of 19 attendees) have subsequently acquired ≥1 funding award (11 non-NIH, 1 NIH) in the short interval since participation.

CONCLUSION

Investments in research activities have translated to significant extramural funding. Those in the last 5 years have been particularly fruitful with INV participants already achieving equal median academic productivity to SCH recipients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and Epidemiologic; Level III.