ライフサイエンスコーパス: citation

1 cular grid-pattern laser photocoagulation (1 citation).

2 six percent of the articles had at least one citation.

3 practice, including what to do if you miss a citation.

4 or, but would rank much lower based on total citations.

5 se cross-references, synonyms and literature citations.

6 The searches initially yielded 64 unique citations.

7 itutes of Health funding history, and PubMed citations.

8 nducted last on May 1, 2015, and yielded 305 citations.

9 of relevant articles to identify additional citations.

10 of MTI, for BioASQ3 challenge data with 6000 citations.

11 only 322 are in the top 1,000 based on total citations.

12 We identified 232 unique citations.

13 nducted in December 2014, yielded 541 unique citations.

14 ited, of which 25 650 (15.6% overall) had no citations.

15 se associations, drug targets and literature citations.

16 The searches retrieved 309 unique citations.

17 arch of the literature yielded 18,311 unique citations.

18 tivity, as measured through publications and citations.

19 and its influence, as measured by subsequent citations.

20 of level of evidence to each of the selected citations.

21 The search strategy yielded 6950 citations.

22 studies published in English and yielded 587 citations.

23 on structure, and semantic annotation of the citations.

24 The searches retrieved 149 unique citations.

25 arch in November 2013 that yielded 447 total citations.

26 of relevant citations to identify additional citations.

27 earch of the literature yielded 5,618 unique citations.

28 Our search identified 5408 unique citations.

29 Our search identified 4517 citations.

30 Two reviewers independently reviewed citations.

31 d a manual search yielded an additional five citations.

32 of co-author affiliations, and diversity of citations.

33 additional articles identified via review of citations; 11 articles were eligible for inclusion in th

34 Of 2567 citations, 20 primary studies met prespecified inclusion

35 The combined searches yielded 98 citations, 23 of which were reviewed in full text.

36 From the initial 248 citations, 27 studies were included.

37 The search yielded 8678 unique citations; 316 full-text articles were reviewed, and 9 s

38 After screening 2292 citations, 43 articles met our inclusion criteria (61 un

39 The search yielded 13,141 unique citations; 465 full-text articles were reviewed, and 33

40 Of the 13 citations, 6 articles on 5 randomized clinical trials pr

41 Among 1556 identified citations, 69 met the inclusion criteria.

42 After screening 5874 citations, 7 RCTs with 10 arms were added for a total of

43 awarded grants is associated with 15% fewer citations, 7% fewer publications, 19% fewer high-impact

44 From among 3258 retrieved citations, 867 SRs were included in the study.

45 After review of the citations a total of 23 studies were included: 12 examin

46 After selection and obtainment of additional citations, a total of 73 articles were reviewed.

47 Analyzer of Bioresource Citation (ABC) is a data mining tool extracting strain r

48 al implant (2 citations) or triamcinolone (1 citation), although cataract and glaucoma were observed

49 ons for citation, we use two case studies of citation amnesia in the field of hypothetical carbon all

50 xplore the sensitivity of indicators to self-citation and alphabetic ordering of authors in papers ac

51 It addresses the two challenges in both citation and MeSH sides.

52 Among 1056 citations and 37 full-text articles reviewed, 23 studies

53 Among 292 citations and 91 full-text articles reviewed, 20 studies

54 2010 and 2012, were selected on the basis of citations and Altimetric scores.

55 2010 and 2012 were selected on the basis of citations and Altimetric scores.

56 2010 and 2012, were selected on the basis of citations and Altmetric scores.

57 2010 and 2012, were selected on the basis of citations and Altmetric scores.

58 abase, and Web of Science [including Science Citations and Conference Proceedings]) and personal libr

59 h August 2014 with hand-searching of in-text citations and no publication date limitations.

60 Citations and reference lists of articles of interest we

61 The citations and reference lists of selected studies were r

62 hors independently and in duplicate screened citations and reviewed text of studies to apply selectio

63 After screening the abstracts of all 305 citations and reviewing the full text of 30 potentially

64 Investigators independently screened citations and verified extracted data on study and parti

65 We construct new data to track publication, citation, and patenting outcomes associated with more th

66 The searches identified 307 unique citations, and 27 studies were selected according to the

67 We found 120 titles, abstracts, and citations, and 32 studies (29 cohorts) were included in

68 The searches identified 216 unique citations, and 49 articles of possible clinical relevanc

69 We identified 4542 citations, and 88 studies were included, comprising 55 6

70 An electronic database search identified 885 citations, and a manual search yielded an additional fiv

71 onic databases, hand-searched references and citations, and consulted experts to identify studies ass

72 We identified 7965 citations, and included 126 studies describing 491 608 H

73 ist's impact, from the h-index to cumulative citations, and independent recognitions, such as prizes.

74 ution as measured by number of publications, citations, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) fundi

75 d parameters for sleeping time and number of citations, applied to small or monodisciplinary bibliogr

76 In physics, total citations are highly negatively correlated with indicato

77 cal measures as the number of connections or citations are not necessarily the deterministic factors

78 Taking relocation into account, we find that citations are the strongest predictors of current online

79 ing titles and abstracts, we excluded 10,461 citations as clearly irrelevant to this systematic revie

80 factor, journal quartile, and the number of citations as suitable metrics for quality consideration.

81 Citations at 60 months were additionally examined as a s

82 oth sexes were not associated with increased citations at 60 months.

83 rmally returns a long list of hits with many citations being unwanted by the user.

84 By analyzing a network of citations between 15,425 United States-produced films pr

85 ated with citation count, which may indicate citation bias.

86 Furthermore, citations buried within supplementary files rob other sc

87 e the APS, where the commonly used number of citations can be a poor indicator of the collective infl

88 port systems with more than 11 000 reference citations, classified into over 1000 transporter familie

89 We found that negative citations concerned higher-quality papers, were focused

90 ates was associated with a 17.8% increase in citation count at 5 years postpublication (95% confidenc

91 InCites provides a normalized citation count for each publication stratifying by year

92 The average citation count per keratoplasty documents was 9.34.

93 ccess rate was independently associated with citation count, which may indicate citation bias.

94 tion remained significant (18.6% increase in citation count; 95% confidence interval, 7.6-29.6%; P<0.

95 Citation counts were compared using generalized estimati

96 incentives to maximize publication numbers, citation counts, and publications in high-impact journal

97 Even after normalizing citation counts, we confirmed a lack of association betw

98 Citation data were obtained using Google Scholar.

99 Citation data were retrieved from SCOPUS, and statistics

100 ovascular journals and indexed in the Scopus citation database from 1997 to 2007.

101 We systematically searched 15 international citation databases for population-level estimates of sep

102 teer services in palliative care in thirteen citation databases up to May 2013.

103 n research articles to determine the minimum citation distance between patented inventions and prior

104 Our analysis emphasizes a complex feature of citation dynamics that so far has received little attent

105 med high prediction power for their model of citation dynamics.

106 E (including in-process and other nonindexed citations), EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Revi

107 ne, Medline in Process, and other nonindexed citations, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database from incept

108 r 30, 2016, identified 56 of a possible 3284 citations for (1) data-driven analyses of the dimensions

109 obtained <2 years of publication, and 2-year citations for each grant's maximally cited paper.

110 the primary trial results, and the number of citations for the primary trial articles and all seconda

111 Of the 1509 citations found in the search, 94 articles were reviewed

112 Of 778 citations found, 9 studies met all the eligibility crite

113 However, the number of citations from all primary and secondary articles did no

114 2003 to August 2017, and a manual search of citations from key primary and review articles.

115 ranked by the composite score than by total citations, H index, or Hm index; 40/47 of these laureate

116 sely, many of the top 1,000 authors on total citations have had no single/first/last-authored cited p

117 icators that address total impact (number of citations, Hirsch H index [H]), co-authorship adjustment

118 Its citation history exhibits a long hibernation period foll

119 entences, which came from 21,014,382 MEDLINE citations (i.e., the complete MEDLINE distribution up to

120 Of 559 citations identified and manually screened, 161 were sel

121 Of 2,578 citations identified by the search strategy, 10 cohort s

122 Of 6,176 citations identified from our search strategy, 26 studie

123 Of 1903 citations identified, 24 studies (16 565 participants) m

124 Of 7050 citations identified, 38 studies from low-income and hig

125 From 31 767 citations identified, 783 studies met the inclusion crit

126 or the journal in which they were published (citations/IF).

127 negative correlation is seen only for total citation impact and citations to papers as single author

128 We analyzed the citation impact and productivity for 1755 de novo invest

129 funded grants bear no association with grant citation impact and productivity.

130 Thomson-Reuters, we calculated a normalized citation impact for each grant by weighting each article

131 The ARRA R01 grants had a similar normalized citation impact per $1 million spent as the payline gran

132 unding enabled research of similar or lesser citation impact than already funded work.

133 tile ranking and subsequent productivity and citation impact, even after accounting for subject categ

134 y were moderately strong predictors of grant citation impact.

135 er-review grant percentile ranking and grant citation impact.

136 ng" and "surgeon training" for abstracts and citations in all languages published between Jan 1, 1998

137 ibrary of Medicine (NLM) to index almost all citations in MEDLINE, which greatly facilitates the appl

138 ned poorly cited articles as those with </=5 citations in the 5 years following publication and poorl

139 used tool for this purpose with over 118 000 citations in the past two decades.

140 bute to above-average productivity and a 17% citation increase per publication, thus identifying thes

141 Two reviewers screened citations independently.

142 (1974-2017 week 1) databases and the Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index were se

143 74-2015 from journals indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded database.

144 Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Science Citation Index Expanded were searched to July 2014.

145 PLINE, PubMed, ERIC, and the Social Sciences Citation Index were conducted from January 1, 1990, to t

146 he Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index were searched combining terms for audit a

147 line and Medline In Process, Embase, Science Citation Index, and CINAHL databases for studies publish

148 BIOSIS, SCOPUS, clinicaltrials.gov, Science Citation Index, and Cochrane Library databases through N

149 nter, Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied H

150 y searching PubMed, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and the Cochrane Centr

151 tional Resources Information Center, Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, Cumulativ

152 MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, Biosis, Science Citation Index, the Cochrane Library, Database of Abstra

153 SSIA; Science Citation Index; Social Science Citation Index; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews;

154 formation Consortium; CINAHL; ASSIA; Science Citation Index; Social Science Citation Index; Cochrane

155 SIA, IBSS (Proquest), Conference Proceedings Citation Indexes (Web of Science), using a combination o

156 comprehensive picture of impact, although no citation indicator, single or composite, can be expected

157 Here, we explore multiple citation indicators that address total impact (number of

158 nual searches were conducted using title and citation information.

159 is to assign a set of MeSH main headings to citations, is crucial for many important tasks in biomed

160 ion network to field-normalize the number of citations it has received.

161 by weighting each article for the number of citations it received normalizing for subject, article t

162 Two decades and over 6000 citations later, the original goals of the project may b

163 pen research is associated with increases in citations, media attention, potential collaborators, job

164 Only 37 articles from 373 citations met our inclusion criteria.

165 igrams, these features include noun phrases, citation meta-data, citation structure, and semantic ann

166 ory attributes by employing the frequency of citation method.

167 Citation metrics are increasingly used to appraise publi

168 Citation metrics from 224 articles indicated that half o

169 rical evidence against the use of short-term citation metrics in the quantification of scientific imp

170 Different citation metrics may offer complementary insights, but o

171 Additional challenges emerge when citation metrics need to be combined across multiple pap

172 ship, and this poses challenges in assessing citation metrics.

173 search article by making novel use of its co-citation network to field-normalize the number of citati

174 ur results revealed that social networks and citation networks contain more leader communities wherea

175 From 3,120 citations, nine before-and-after studies were included.

176 The content (citations, nomenclature, genomic location, gene products

177 ons received per million dollars of funding, citations obtained <2 years of publication, and 2-year c

178 However, citation of empirical evidence is haphazard; the scholar

179 The preferential citation of studies with the highest success rates could

180 Using Scopus citations of Cell Stem Cell research papers, it illustra

181 r 2000, but including the milestones and key citations of earlier work.

182 correlated with productivity as measured by citations of grant-supported publications.

183 formed, including a Google Scholar search of citations of included articles.

184 external stakeholders (proximal outcome) and citations of NTP's research in scientific publications,

185 rns (PPPs) for AMD to systematic reviews and citations of reliable systematic reviews to support each

186 The searches yielded 321 citations, of which 109 were reviewed in full text and 2

187 The combined searches yielded 108 citations, of which 20 were deemed clinically relevant f

188 The search yielded 838 potentially relevant citations, of which 273 were in non-English languages.

189 The database search retrieved 4,172 unique citations, of which 289 were reviewed, and 13 studies re

190 This search yielded 311 citations, of which 37 were deemed clinically relevant f

191 books, it is virtually always stated without citation or argument.

192 n with dexamethasone intravitreal implant (2 citations) or triamcinolone (1 citation), although catar

193 ite medical journals, we show differences in citation outcomes for articles that received different a

194 ower budgets, ARRA R01 grants had comparable citation outcomes per $million spent to that of contempo

195 sessed according to multiple publication and citation outcomes.

196 was included for analysis of publication and citation outcomes.

197 Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Cent

198 These synopses received more citations (P = 0.01) and needed a larger research team (

199 tion network structures are calculated using citation patterns across technology classes during 1975-

200 -18), and the median citation rate was 0.007 citations per day (IQR: 0.0032-0.017).

201 n, journal impact factor, and citation rate (citations per day) were extracted for the diagnostic acc

202 differ from available SDARs in their average citations per year over their lifespan or journal impact

203 s by identifying possible "false negatives." CITATION: Phillips MB, Leonard JA, Grulke CM, Chang DT,

204 alysis uses 1.8 million US patents and their citation properties to map the innovation network and it

205 ving the Micro F-measure of 0.6248 for 9,040 citations provided by the BioASQ challenge.

206 Citation publication dates ranged from August 1, 1968, t

207 e of publication, journal impact factor, and citation rate (citations per day) were extracted for the

208 ositive correlation between STARD result and citation rate (r = 0.096; 95% confidence interval [CI]:

209 sitive correlation between impact factor and citation rate (r = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.535, 0.617), and a we

210 tialed out, the positive correlation between citation rate and STARD result does not persist (r = 0.0

211 s of reporting, as evaluated with STARD, and citation rate as well as impact factor.

212 lation between completeness of reporting and citation rate does not persist.

213 publications meaning that, for c >/= cx, the citation rate measures scientific impact more transparen

214 l studies are rarely frontline news, but the citation rate of this paper underscores the critical nat

215 le citation rates are divided by an expected citation rate that is derived from performance of articl

216 15 of 25 items (IQR: 12-18), and the median citation rate was 0.007 citations per day (IQR: 0.0032-0

217 ARD] endorsement) and study-level variables (citation rate, timing of publication, and order of publi

218 ion between STARD result, impact factor, and citation rate.

219 of transplant research as measured by later citation rate.

220 s reputation is found to dominate the annual citation rate.

221 ublications (1981-2011) were evaluated using citation rates and impact factors.

222 o earlier proposals making use of literature citation rates and the prior knowledge of the analyst, t

223 Article citation rates are divided by an expected citation rate

224 Impact was evaluated as annual citation rates measured using the ISI Web of Knowledge d

225 ciations between alternative metric data and citation rates.

226 n, in particular, are associated with higher citation rates.

227 sus peer review versus mixed--did not impact citation rates.

228 e effect of impact factor on postpublication citation rates.

229 y (STARD) is associated with postpublication citation rates.

230 The Relative Citation Ratio (RCR), a metric that was designed to serv

231 The resulting Relative Citation Ratio is article level and field independent an

232 Our coprimary end points were citations received per million dollars of funding, citat

233 There were 3 citations representing 2 studies with level I evidence f

234 There were 7 citations representing 4 clinical trials that provided l

235 y Instrument, influence using Web of Science citations, results, and conclusions was created, and qua

236 Of 3660 citations retrieved, 16 case-control studies comprising

237 Of the 3527 citations retrieved, 19 studies were included, with more

238 Of 3717 citations retrieved, 61 studies comprising 72 samples me

239 Of a total of 3948 citations retrieved, we selected 52 eligible studies pub

240 We identified 2522 citations, retrieved 318 for further review, and retaine

241 Eight other citations reviewed were rated as level II, and 4 citatio

242 Of 3,188 citations reviewed, 10 studies met the inclusion criteri

243 Of 3188 citations reviewed, 10 studies met the inclusion criteri

244 Of 488 citations screened, 10 studies were identified for inclu

245 Of 11,469 citations screened, 68 studies randomly assigning 7,265

246 Of the 4640 citations screened, 69 articles were included for this m

247 Citation searches, reference checking and searches of th

248 y-August 2016: database searching, backwards citation searching and forward citation searching.

249 ng, backwards citation searching and forward citation searching.

250 from the literature search and three through citation searching.

251 Out of 142 citations, seven studies met the inclusion criteria, and

252 SH indexing has two challenging aspects: the citation side and MeSH side.

253 The citation side challenge is solved by a new deep semantic

254 For the citation side, all existing methods, including Medical T

255 es include noun phrases, citation meta-data, citation structure, and semantic annotation of the citat

256 rovement is obtained when using meta-data or citation structure.

257 , and the number of papers that receive more citations than average for the journal in which they wer

258 ificantly higher numbers of publications and citations than MDs, regardless of academic or institutio

259 hy of peer review by editors, received fewer citations than those sent for peer review.

260 hat half of the publications have cumulative citations that rank in the top 34% normalized for subjec

261 ctronic databases were conducted to identify citations that reported costs or economic analysis for i

262 Among 3110 citations, the search selected 53 studies, 42 of which r

263 ore than 100 times per year and 23.4% of all citations; their costs were substantially less than the

264 also reviewed the bibliographies of relevant citations to identify additional citations.

265 independent reviewers screened the returned citations to identify relevant reviews and rated the qua

266 n is seen only for total citation impact and citations to papers as single author.

267 iber Hm index [Hm]), and author order (total citations to papers as single; single or first; or singl

268 Citations to previous literature are extensively used to

269 Initial analysis of the retrieved citations to reveal clusters of evidence of nursing impa

270 A recursive search of all citations to the article was performed using the Web of

271 associated with a slightly faster decline in citations to the paper in the long run.

272 incorrect articles showed that the number of citations to these articles increased over time.

273 d their progress for linked publications and citations to those publications.

274 ted a methodology to characterize "negative" citations using bibliometric data and natural language p

275 Two reviewers independently reviewed citations using predetermined inclusion and exclusion cr

276 Receiving a negative citation was also associated with a slightly faster decl

277 Each citation was assessed based on its abstract, and the ful

278 The title and abstract of each citation was independently screened by two reviewers and

279 The relevance of citations was assessed based on inclusion criteria, with

280 After outlining the reasons for citation, we use two case studies of citation amnesia in

281 Our search yielded 6315 unique citations; we analyzed findings from 69 studies (18 on d

282 fty articles with the highest average yearly citation were identified.

283 In all, 57 citations were found to be relevant.

284 Reference lists of retrieved citations were hand searched for relevant studies.

285 A total of 1093 citations were identified and screened.

286 3517 citations were identified by the search and 53 studies m

287 A total of 1,124 citations were identified.

288 Potential citations were obtained for more detailed review and ass

289 tions reviewed were rated as level II, and 4 citations were rated as level III.

290 A total of 8116 citations were retrieved.

291 Citations were screened independently by two reviewers f

292 Citations were screened using prespecified eligibility c

293 ACTION: One hundred forty-seven nonduplicate citations were screened, 32 underwent full screening and

294 publishing at high rates and receiving many citations were, overall, not at greater risk of bias.

295 rom peer reviewers received relatively fewer citations when they were eventually published.

296 oncatenating titles and abstracts of MEDLINE citations which refer to the miRNAs.

297 The search retrieved 10,247 citations with 120 studies reporting on the incidence of

298 We identified 628 citations with our search, of which 610 were excluded af

299 ature, offers access to more than 20 million citations with three-quarters of a million new ones adde

300 e to approximate 'death dates' and calculate citations/year over each SDAR's lifespan.

301 ing novel technologies (median, 15.6 vs 10.3 citations/yr; p = 0.002).