The growth of acronyms in the scientific literature

Medical eponyms versus acronyms: what medical terminology is most beneficial to learn? A question of goals

Appropriate use of medical terminology is one of the core conditions for successful communication in monolingual and multilingual healthcare communities. The modern scientific language is based on the descriptive terminology. However, it is often the case that the advantages of descriptive terminology are at odds with the ability to express complex concepts in just a few words. To solve this practicality problem it is customary to coin abbreviations and acronyms preferred to traditional eponyms. Today eponyms are considered ambiguous and non-descriptive, linked to the terminology of the past. The overview of this study demonstrates that the current habit of using acronyms can increase the scientific descriptive capacity compared to eponyms. On the other hand, acronyms remain ambiguous and more ephemeral than eponyms. Furthermore, eponyms are not as descriptive as acronyms, but they still carry important information for a medical student. If you truly believe in the importance of Medical Humanities in the medical curriculum, two aspects cannot be overlooked. First, eponyms bring students closer in an almost subliminal way to the history of medicine and the non-strictly technical-scientific field of medicine. Second, medicine is a complex science applied to humans and must strive to keep the patient at the center of its interests. Patients and their families preferably ask us to use eponyms. Which terminology to choose for medical students? The teachers have the last word.

Evaluating the dependability of reference-driven citation forecasts amid the COVID-19 pandemic: A bibliometric analysis across diverse journals

BACKGROUND

The journal impact factor significantly influences research publishing and funding decisions. With the surge in research due to COVID-19, this study investigates whether references remain reliable citation predictors during this period.

METHODS

Four multidisciplinary journals (PLoS One, Medicine [Baltimore], J. Formos. Med. Assoc., and Eur. J. Med. Res.) were analyzed using the Web of Science database for 2020 to 2022 publications. The study employed descriptive, predictive, and diagnostic analytics, with tools such as 4-quadrant radar plots, univariate regressions, and country-based collaborative maps via the follower-leading cluster algorithm.

RESULTS

Six countries dominated the top 20 affiliations: China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Germany, and Brazil. References remained strong citation indicators during the COVID-19 period, except for Eur. J. Med. Res. due to its smaller sample size (n = 492) than other counterparts (i.e., 41,181, 12,793, and 1464). Three journals showed higher network density coefficients, suggesting a potential foundation for reference-based citation predictions.

CONCLUSION

Despite variations among journals, references effectively predict article citations during the COVID-19 era, underlining the importance of network density. Future studies should delve deeper into the correlation between network density and citation prediction.

PopScience: Teaching students to Communicate Scientific Findings to the General Public

Scientific communication has become more important than ever before, yet most scientists are not trained in how to communicate their research findings to the general public. The PopScience assignment is a semester-long writing and oral communication project that focuses on how to communicate primary scientific literature to the general public. The overall goals of the PopScience project are to teach students how to: 1) critically evaluate neuroscience primary literature, and 2) translate and convey primary literature findings to a lay audience. Students completed a pre- and post- assignment perceptive assessment to evaluate the skills they obtained (e.g., reading comprehension and critical thinking), and the effectiveness of the assignment in improving these skills. Students reported that overall, the assignment improved their ability to read primary literature articles and explain them to a lay audience. Self-evaluation and professor assessments suggest the PopScience assignment also improved student's ability to integrate and summarize results from multiple sources, as well as identify and explain neuroscience terminology that often leads to confusion for lay audiences. In conclusion, this assignment teaches students how to communicate basic neuroscience to the general public, a skill that continues to be critical in successful scientific careers.

Abbreviation use decreases effective clinical communication and can compromise patient safety

Clear communication is paramount for achieving the safest and best patient outcomes, for maximising time efficiency, and lowering clinician workload. Multiple factors contribute to communication efficacy, including knowledge of topics between those communicating, interpersonal familiarity, and available time. Information exchange is growing faster and more frequent due to evolving communication technology, and communication is expanding as a response to increasing workloads. The number of referrals between specialties and the general practitioner (GP) is rising. The use of abbreviations has expanded in clinical communications and is likely to lead to misunderstanding, increased workload, and worse patient outcomes. In this article, we explore the use of abbreviations in the clinical setting.

Scientific novelty beyond the experiment

Practical experiments drive important scientific discoveries in biology, but theory-based research studies also contribute novel-sometimes paradigm-changing-findings. Here, we appraise the roles of theory-based approaches focusing on the experiment-dominated wet-biology research areas of microbial growth and survival, cell physiology, host-pathogen interactions, and competitive or symbiotic interactions. Additional examples relate to analyses of genome-sequence data, climate change and planetary health, habitability, and astrobiology. We assess the importance of thought at each step of the research process; the roles of natural philosophy, and inconsistencies in logic and language, as drivers of scientific progress; the value of thought experiments; the use and limitations of artificial intelligence technologies, including their potential for interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research; and other instances when theory is the most-direct and most-scientifically robust route to scientific novelty including the development of techniques for practical experimentation or fieldwork. We highlight the intrinsic need for human engagement in scientific innovation, an issue pertinent to the ongoing controversy over papers authored using/authored by artificial intelligence (such as the large language model/chatbot ChatGPT). Other issues discussed are the way in which aspects of language can bias thinking towards the spatial rather than the temporal (and how this biased thinking can lead to skewed scientific terminology); receptivity to research that is non-mainstream; and the importance of theory-based science in education and epistemology. Whereas we briefly highlight classic works (those by Oakes Ames, Francis H.C. Crick and James D. Watson, Charles R. Darwin, Albert Einstein, James E. Lovelock, Lynn Margulis, Gilbert Ryle, Erwin R.J.A. Schrödinger, Alan M. Turing, and others), the focus is on microbiology studies that are more-recent, discussing these in the context of the scientific process and the types of scientific novelty that they represent. These include several studies carried out during the 2020 to 2022 lockdowns of the COVID-19 pandemic when access to research laboratories was disallowed (or limited). We interviewed the authors of some of the featured microbiology-related papers and-although we ourselves are involved in laboratory experiments and practical fieldwork-also drew from our own research experiences showing that such studies can not only produce new scientific findings but can also transcend barriers between disciplines, act counter to scientific reductionism, integrate biological data across different timescales and levels of complexity, and circumvent constraints imposed by practical techniques. In relation to urgent research needs, we believe that climate change and other global challenges may require approaches beyond the experiment.

The ascendancy of research in acronyms related to COVID-19 displayed on a growth-share matrix (GSM): Bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

The acronym COVID, which stands for coronavirus disease, has become one of the most infamous acronyms in the world since 2020. An analysis of acronyms in health and medical journals has previously found that acronyms have become more common in titles and abstracts over time (e.g., DNA and human immunodeficiency virus are the most common acronyms). However, the trends in acronyms related to COVID remain unclear. It is necessary to verify whether the dramatic rise in COVID-related research can be observed by visualizations. The purpose of this study was to display the acronym trends in comparison through the use of temporal graphs and to verify that the COVID acronym has a significant edge over the other 2 in terms of research dominance.

METHODS

An analysis of the 30 most frequently used acronyms related to COVID in PubMed since 1950 was carried out using 4 graphs to conduct this bibliometric analysis, including line charts, temporal bar graphs (TBGs), temporal heatmaps (THM), and growth-share matrices (GSM). The absolute advantage coefficient (AAC) was used to measure the dominance strength for COVID acronym since 2020. COVID's AAC trend was expected to decline over time.

RESULTS

This study found that COVID, DNA, and human immunodeficiency virus have been the most frequently observed research acronyms since 2020, followed by computed tomography and World Health Organization; although there is no ideal method for displaying acronym trends over time, researchers can utilize the GSM to complement traditional line charts, TBGs, and THMs, as shown in this study; and COVID has a significant edge over the other 2 in terms of research dominance by ACC (≥0.67), but COVID's AAC trend has declined (e.g., AACs 0.83, 0.80, and 0.69) since 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

It is recommended that the GSM complement traditional line charts, TBGs, and THMs in trend analysis, rather than being restricted to acronyms in future research. This research provides readers with the AAC to understand how research dominates its counterparts, which will be useful for future bibliometric analyses.

How localized are computational templates? A machine learning approach

A commonly held background assumption about the sciences is that they connect along borders characterized by ontological or explanatory relationships, usually given in the order of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, and the social sciences. Interdisciplinary work, in this picture, arises in the connecting regions of adjacent disciplines. Philosophical research into interdisciplinary model transfer has increasingly complicated this picture by highlighting additional connections orthogonal to it. But most of these works have been done through case studies, which due to their strong focus struggle to provide foundations for claims about large-scale relations between multiple scientific disciplines. As a supplement, in this contribution, we propose to philosophers of science the use of modern science mapping techniques to trace connections between modeling techniques in large literature samples. We explain in detail how these techniques work, and apply them to a large, contemporary, and multidisciplinary data set (n=383.961 articles). Through the comparison of textual to mathematical representations, we suggest formulaic structures that are particularly common among different disciplines and produce first results indicating the general strength and commonality of such relationships.

COVID-19, Framing and Naming a Pandemic: How What Is Not in a Disease Name May Be More Important than What Is

While the disease name and acronym COVID-19, where 'CO' refers to 'corona', 'VI' to virus, 'D' to disease, and '19' the detection year, represents a rational, historically informed, and even culturally sensitive name choice by the World Health Organization, from the perspective of an ethnography of disease framing and naming, this study finds that it does not, however, readily communicate a public health message. This observation, based on linguistic and medical anthropological research and analyses, raises a critically important question: Can or should official disease names, beyond labeling medical conditions, also be designed to function as public health messages? As the ethnography of the term COVID-19 and its 'framing' demonstrates, using acronyms for disease names in public health can not only reduce their intelligibility but may also lower emerging public perceptions of risk, inadvertently, increasing the public's vulnerability. This study argues that the ongoing messaging and communication challenges surrounding the framing of COVID-19 and its variants represent an important opportunity for public health to engage social science research on language and risk communication to critically rethink disease naming and framing and how what they are called can prefigure and inform the public's uptake of science, understandings of risk, and the perceived importance of public health guidelines.

If this title is funny, will you cite me? Citation impacts of humour and other features of article titles in ecology and evolution

Titles of scientific papers play a key role in their discovery, and “good” titles engage and recruit readers. Humour is a particularly interesting aspect of title construction, but little is known about whether funny titles boost or limit paper impact. We used a panel of scorers to assess title humour for 2439 papers in ecology and evolution, and measured associations between humour and subsequent citation (self-citation and citation by others). Papers with funnier titles were cited less, but this appears to reflect confounding with paper importance: self-citation data suggest that authors give funnier titles to papers they consider less important. After correction for this, papers with funny titles have significantly higher citation rates ( P < 2.2 × 10−16; roughly doubling from lowest to highest humour score)—suggesting that humour recruits readers. We also examined associations between citation rates and other features of titles. Inclusion of acronyms and taxonomic names was associated with lower citation rates, while assertive-statement phrasing and presence of colons, question marks, and political regions were associated with somewhat higher citation rates. Title length had no effect on citation. Our results suggest that scientists can use creativity with titles without having their work condemned to obscurity.

Using the Sankey diagram to visualize article features on the topics of whole-exome sequencing (WES) and whole-genome sequencing (WGS) since 2012: Bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

Sequencing technologies, such as whole-exome sequencing (WES) and whole-genome sequencing (WGS), have been increasingly applied to medical research in recent years. Which countries, journals, and institutes (called entities) contributed most to the fields (WES/WGS) remains unknown. Temporal bar graphs (TBGs) are frequently used in trend analysis of publications. However, how to draw the TBG on the Sankey diagram is not well understood in bibliometrics. We thus aimed to investigate the evolution of article entities in the WES/WGS fields using publication-based TBGs and compare the individual research achievements (IRAs) among entities.

METHODS

A total of 3599 abstracts downloaded from icite analysis were matched to entities, including article identity numbers, citations, publication years, journals, affiliated countries/regions of origin, and medical subject headings (MeSH terms) in PubMed on March 12, 2022. The relative citation ratio (RCR) was extracted from icite analysis to compute the hT index (denoting the IRA, taking both publications and citations into account) for each entity in the years between 2012 and 2021. Three types of visualizations were applied to display the trends of publications (e.g., choropleth maps and the enhanced TBGs) and IRAs (e.g., the flowchart on the Sankey diagram) for article entities in WES/WGS.

RESULTS

We observed that the 3 countries (the US, China, and the UK) occupied most articles in the WES/WGS fields since 2012, the 3 entities (i.e., top 5 journals, research institutes, and MeSH terms) were demonstrated on the enhanced TBGs, the top 2 MeSH terms were genetics and methods in WES and WGS, and the IRAs of 6 article entities with their hT-indices were succinctly and simultaneously displayed on a single Sankey diagram that was never launched in bibliographical studies.

CONCLUSION

The number of WES/WGS-related articles has dramatically increased since 2017. TBGs, particularly with hTs on the Sankey, are recommended for research on a topic (or in a discipline) to compare trends of publications and IRAs for entities in future bibliographical studies.

Using Sankey diagrams to explore the trend of article citations in the field of bladder cancer: Research achievements in China higher than those in the United States

BACKGROUND

Urology authors are required to evaluate research achievements (RAs) in the field of bladder cancer (BC). However, no such bibliometric indices were appropriately applied to quantify the contributions to BC in research. In this study, we examined 3 questions: whether RAs in China are higher than those in the United States, how the Sankey-based temporal bar graph (STBG) may be applied to the analysis of the trend of article citations in the BC field, and what subthemes were reflected in China's and the United States' proportional counts in BC articles.

METHODS

Using the PubMed search engine to download data, we conducted citation analyses of BC articles authored by urology scholars since 2012. A total of 9885 articles were collected and analyzed using the relative citations ratios (RCRs) and the STBG. The 3 research goals were verified using the RCRs, the STBG, and medical subject headings (MesH terms). The choropleth map and the forest plot were used to 1 highlight the geographical distributions of publications and RCRs for countries/regions and 2 compare the differences in themes (denoted by major MeSH terms on proportional counts using social network analysis to cluster topics) between China and the United States.

RESULTS

There was a significant rise over the years in RCRs within the 9885 BC articles. We found that the RCRs in China were substantially higher than those in the United States since 2017, the STBG successfully explored the RCR trend of BC articles and was easier and simpler than the traditional line charts, area plots, and TBGs, and the subtheme of genetics in China has a significantly higher proportion of articles than the United States. The most productive and influential countries/regions (denoted by RCRs) were {Japan, Germany, and Italy} and {Japan, Germany, New York}, respectively, when the US states and provinces/metropolitan cities/areas in China were separately compared to other countries/regions.

CONCLUSIONS

With an overall increase in publications and RCRs on BC articles, research contributions assessed by the RCRs and visualized by the STBGs are suggested for use in future bibliographical studies.

Putting plain language summaries into perspective

Publication-associated plain language summaries are brief, jargon-free summaries of scientific publications. They are intended for a broad, non-expert audience to help maximize the accessibility of the publication. Plain language summaries are typically found alongside peer-reviewed publications or in supplementary materials and can be indexed in PubMed. In this narrative commentary, we present the perspectives of five day-to-day users of plain language summaries from different stakeholder groups, gained through semi-structured qualitative interviews about the users' experiences with and opinions of plain language summaries.

Preventing radial arterial catheter failure in critical care - Factoring updated clinical strategies and techniques

Radial artery catheterization is a frequently performed procedure for critically ill patients. The correct function of arterial catheters is essential to provide accurate and continuous hemodynamic monitoring, facilitating intermittent blood sampling and helping to optimize the workload for critical care nurses and physicians. However, they are not without their own problems. This narrative practice review discusses several clinical aspects that are not frequently considered but may contribute to enhanced catheter functionality, less device-related failure and more acceptable dwell times. Ultrasound has demonstrated unequivocal efficacies and safety with the procedure, improving first attempt success rates with children, the obese or patients with unstable clinical vital signs and shock. Moreover, anatomic variations of the radial artery are not rare, and ultrasound-guided catheterization reduces the incidence of insertion-related complications such as hematoma, posterior wall puncture, intimal dissection, and radial nerve injury. Ultrasound guidance offers several immediate benefits by enhancing the most appropriate insertion techniques, allows for the correct catheter to vessel ratio measurements to be performed and reduces the angle of insertion, which may affect catheter failure due to inappropriate catheter length. A deeper and more proximal cannulation site at least 4 cm from wrist joint, avoiding the area of wrist flexion, reduces mechanical complications related to patient movements and may improve catheter functionality and dwell along with a better area for stabilization and securement.

It's all in the title

The title is the most pivotal part of a scientific paper and should be assembled with particular caution to achieve the right amalgam of vigour and style. Besides informing about the content, the title provides important keywords that facilitate online searches. Most importantly, the title should hook potential readers. Here are some thoughts that may aid in accomplishing this multifaceted mission.

Better Writing in Scientific Publications Builds Reader Confidence and Understanding

Scientific publications are the building blocks of discovery and collaboration, but their impact is limited by the style in which they are traditionally written. Recently, many authors have called for a switch to an engaging, accessible writing style. Here, we experimentally test how readers respond to such a style. We hypothesized that scientific abstracts written in a more accessible style would improve readers' reported readability and confidence as well as their understanding, assessed using multiple-choice questions on the content. We created a series of scientific abstracts, corresponding to real publications on three scientific topics at four levels of difficulty-varying from the difficult, traditional style to an engaging, accessible style. We gave these abstracts to a team of readers consisting of 170 third-year undergraduate students. Then, we posed questions to measure the readers' readability, confidence, and understanding with the content. The scientific abstracts written in a more accessible style resulted in higher readability, understanding, and confidence. These findings demonstrate that rethinking the way we communicate our science may empower a more collaborative and diverse industry.

Questions to the article: demonstrating the ascendancy of COVID-19 research using acronyms

The article published on 16 May 2021, is well-written and of interest, but remains several questions that are required for clarifications, such as the presentations in Table 1 and Fig. 1 that should be improved further for providing more valuable information to readers. After viewing Table 1, measuring the strength of quantity (= 0.84) referred to the next two counterparts for the top one acronym (e.g., COVID) is demonstrated using the absolute advantage coefficient (AAC). Similarly, Traditional line charts on top-eight acronyms provide us with messages, including (i) DNA and RNA are popular over three decades; (ii) CT, MRI, HIV, SARS, and CoV start in 1972, 1985, 1986, 2003, and 2003, respectively; (iii) the number of COVID substantially surpasses over other seven acronyms in 2020 though the seven acronyms are almost equal in quantity in 2020. We are interested in producing similar Table 1 and Fig. 1 with a video MP4 provided to readers who can click on the link to manipulate the scenarios on their own. We found that the AAC and the traditional line charts on a dashboard make data clear for a better understanding of demonstrating the ascendancy of COVID-19 research using acronyms. The line charts are easily examined on Google Maps.

Demonstrating the ascendancy of COVID-19 research using acronyms

"COVID" which stands for corona virus disease, has become the world's most infamous acronym. Previous analysis of acronyms in health and medical journals found a growing use of acronyms over time in titles and abstracts, with "DNA" as the most common. Here we examine acronyms in the pandemic year of 2020 to show the dramatic rise of COVID-related research. "COVID" was over five times more frequently used than "DNA" in 2020, and in just one year it has become the sixth most popular acronym of all time, surpassing "AIDS", "PCR" and "MRI".

Specialized terminology reduces the number of citations of scientific papers

Words are the building blocks of communicating science. As our understanding of the world progresses, scientific disciplines naturally enrich their specialized vocabulary (jargon). However, in the era of interdisciplinarity, the use of jargon may hinder effective communication among scientists that do not share a common scientific background. The question of how jargon limits the transmission of scientific knowledge has long been debated but rarely addressed quantitatively. We explored the relationship between the use of jargon and citations, using 21 486 articles focusing on cave research, a multidisciplinary field particularly prone to terminological specialization, and where linguistic disagreement among peers is frequent. We demonstrate a significant negative relationship between the proportion of jargon words in the title and abstract and the number of citations a paper receives. Given that these elements are the hook to readers, we urge scientists to restrict jargon to sections of the paper where its use is unavoidable.

Let research on subterranean habitats resonate!

Whereas scientists interested in subterranean life typically insist that their research is exciting, adventurous, and important to answer general questions, this enthusiasm and potential often fade when the results are translated into scientific publications. This is because cave research is often written by cave scientists for cave scientists; thus, it rarely “leaves the cave”. However, the status quo is changing rapidly. We analysed 21,486 articles focused on subterranean ecosystems published over the last three decades and observed a recent, near-exponential increase in their annual citations and impact factor. Cave research is now more often published in non-specialized journals, thanks to a number of authors who are exploiting subterranean habitats as model systems for addressing important scientific questions. Encouraged by this positive trend, we here propose a few personal ideas for improving the generality of subterranean literature, including tips for framing broadly scoped research and making it accessible to a general audience, even when published in cave-specialized journals. Hopefully, this small contribution will succeed in condensing and broadcasting even further the collective effort taken by the subterranean biology community to bring their research “outside the cave”.