Globalization and changing trends of biomedical research output

Conte, Marisa; Schnell, Santiago; Omary, M. Bishr

doi:10.1172/jci.insight.95206

Cited by 26 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The current observations are not surprising, as they reflect global academic publishing (Conte et al 2017). This analysis does not regard subject matter, and research on consequences of COVID-19 in for example Africa and South-America may be initiated by authors from Europe and North-America.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Are all voices heard in the COVID-19 debate?

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The COVID-19 pandemic has vast global consequences. Yet, effective mitigation strategies and economic and medical outfall differ extensively across the globe. It is currently unclear how well researchers from all continents are represented in the unsolicited and solicited publications. A literature review was performed in SCOPUS on COVID-19 oriented publications in the four most impactful medical journals. These included the British Medical Journal, Journal of the American Medical Association, the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet. We identified 809 eligible publications out of identified 924 records. The vast majority of publications on COVID-19, in the four can be considered European (47.7%) or North-American (37.3%) research. Chinese reports were relatively common (8.8%); however, reports from other Asian countries (3.2%) were minimal. Research from the African (1.0%) and South-American continents (0.6%) was rarely published in these journals. These observations are not surprising, as they reflect global academic publishing. However, involving all continents into COVID-19 research is important as COVID-19 management strategies and societal and economic consequences differ extensively across the globe. We see an important role for medical journals in encouraging global voices through solicited articles, to ensure a weighted research and humanitarian response.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Are all voices heard in the COVID-19 debate?

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The United States is the single dominant country in the field, which is unsurprising given its population, wealth, and research resources and output. [64][65][66][67] The high standing of the United Kingdom and Netherlands despite smaller populations may be attributable to primary care data availability, 68,69 facilitated by high adoption rates of EHRs, 70 and strong information technology academics and industries. 71,72 Investments in data generation, quality, and access will increase future possibilities for AI to be used to strengthen primary care in the corresponding region.…”

Section: Key Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Artificial Intelligence and Primary Care Research: A Scoping Review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE Rapid increases in technology and data motivate the application of artificial intelligence (AI) to primary care, but no comprehensive review exists to guide these efforts. Our objective was to assess the nature and extent of the body of research on AI for primary care. METHODSWe performed a scoping review, searching 11 published or gray literature databases with terms pertaining to AI (eg, machine learning, bayes* network) and primary care (eg, general pract*, nurse). We performed title and abstract and then full-text screening using Covidence. Studies had to involve research, include both AI and primary care, and be published in English. We extracted data and summarized studies by 7 attributes: purpose(s); author appointment(s); primary care function(s); intended end user(s); health condition(s); geographic location of data source; and AI subfield(s). RESULTSOf 5,515 unique documents, 405 met eligibility criteria. The body of research focused on developing or modifying AI methods (66.7%) to support physician diagnostic or treatment recommendations (36.5% and 13.8%), for chronic conditions, using data from higher-income countries. Few studies (14.1%) had even a single author with a primary care appointment. The predominant AI subfields were supervised machine learning (40.0%) and expert systems (22.2%).CONCLUSIONS Research on AI for primary care is at an early stage of maturity. For the field to progress, more interdisciplinary research teams with end-user engagement and evaluation studies are needed. Ann Fam Med 2020;18:250-258. https://doi.

show abstract

“…An underlying driver of AI research, and by extension maturation, is data availability, particularly after the shift toward data-driven machine learning methods. The United States is the single dominant country in the field, which is not surprising given its population, wealth, and research resources and output (58)(59)(60)(61). The high standing of the United Kingdom and Netherlands despite smaller populations may be attributable to PC data availability (62,63), facilitated by high adoption rates of EMRs (64), and strong information technology academics and industries (65,66).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research on Artificial Intelligence and Primary Care: A Scoping Review

Kueper

Terry

Zwarenstein

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the nature and extent of the body of research on artificial intelligence (AI) and primary care. Methods:We performed a scoping review, searching 11 published and grey literature databases with subject headings and key words pertaining to the concepts of 1) AI and 2) primary care: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cinahl, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, MathSciNet, AAAI, arXiv. Screening included title and abstract and then full text stages. Final inclusion criteria: 1) research study of any design, 2) developed or used AI, 3) used primary care data and/or study conducted in a primary care setting and/or explicit mention of study applicability to primary care; exclusion criteria: 1) narrative, editorial, or textbook chapter, 2) not applicable to primary care population or settings, 3) full text inaccessible in the English Language. We extracted and summarized seven key characteristics of included studies: overall study purpose(s), author appointments, primary care functions, author intended target end user(s), target health condition(s), location of data source(s) (if any), subfield(s) of AI.Results: Of 5,515 non-duplicate documents, 405 met our eligibility criteria. The body of literature is primarily focused on creating novel AI methods or modifying existing AI methods to support physician diagnostic or treatment recommendations, for chronic conditions, using data from higher income countries. Meaningfully more studies had at least one author with a technology, engineering, or math appointment than with a primary care appointment (57 (14%) compared to 217 (54%)). Predominant AI subfields were supervised machine learning and expert systems. Discussion:Overall, AI research associated with primary care is at an early stage of maturity with respect to widespread implementation in practice settings. For the field to progress, more interdisciplinary research teams with end-user engagement and evaluation studies are needed.

show abstract

Globalization and changing trends of biomedical research output

Cited by 26 publications

References 6 publications

Are all voices heard in the COVID-19 debate?

Are all voices heard in the COVID-19 debate?

Artificial Intelligence and Primary Care Research: A Scoping Review

Research on Artificial Intelligence and Primary Care: A Scoping Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About