排名肝病学家：用赫希的 h 指数预防“信仰危机”？

Ranking hepatologists: which Hirsch's h-index to prevent the "e-crise de foi-e"?

机构信息

UPMC, service d'hépato-gastroentérologie, Paris Liver Center, groupe hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP, 47-83, boulevard de l'Hôpital, 75651 Paris cedex 13, France.

出版信息

Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol. 2011 May;35(5):375-86. doi: 10.1016/j.clinre.2011.02.014. Epub 2011 Apr 8.

DOI:10.1016/j.clinre.2011.02.014

PMID:21482219

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Hirsch's h-Index (h-I) quantifies and predicts an individual's scientific output. The h-I can be estimated from several sources, but no "gold-standard" approach has yet been established. The aim was to analyze the discordance rates in Hepatology between five h-I assessments from five databases: Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), ScholarL restricted to "liver", and a specialty h-I HepaTop.

METHODS

The reference for the main endpoint was "h-I 50", the median of included authors. Applicability and accuracy were assessed among 158 authors identified in the top 100 of the most cited "clinical" Hepatologists by two independent sources. The accuracy assessment used the area under the receiver operating characteristics curves (AUROCs) standardized or not according to spectrum effect, and the Pearson (PCC), and intraclass (ICC) coefficients of correlation.

RESULTS

Performances varied significantly according to h-I (P<0.001). Applicability was 80% for h-HepaTop and 100% for other h-I. AUROCs ranged from 0.55 (h-Scholar) to 0.88 (h-HepaTop). The h-I were highly inter-correlated but without perfect concordance: ICCs ranged from 0.01 (h-WoS versus h-Scholar) to 0.53 (h-WoS versus h-Scopus; P<0.0001). There were no differences between the AUROCs for h-Scopus, h-WoS and h-HepaTop, with lower accuracy for h-Scholar. The h-WoS AUROC adjusted for risk factors, scientific age and homonymy, increased in combination with h-HepaTop from 0.83 to 0.94 P=0.005.

CONCLUSIONS

The h-I should be carefully checked before any hepatologist's evaluation. Three factors were associated with applicability and accuracy: the data source, the risk of homonyms, and scientific age. A unique "global" identification number is warranted.

摘要

背景

赫希指数（h-I）可量化和预测个体的科研产出。可以从多个来源估算 h-I，但尚未建立“金标准”方法。本研究旨在分析来自五个数据库（Scholar、Scopus、Web of Science[WoS]、受限为“肝脏”的 ScholarL 和专门的 h-I HepaTop）的五个 h-I 评估在《肝脏病学》杂志中的差异率。

方法

主要终点的参考值为“h-I 50”，即纳入作者的中位数。通过两种独立来源确定的前 100 位最具影响力的“临床”肝病学家中的 158 位作者，评估适用性和准确性。准确性评估使用根据谱效应标准化或未标准化的接收器操作特征曲线（AUROCs）下面积、Pearson（PCC）和组内（ICC）相关系数。

结果

h-I 差异显著（P<0.001）。h-HepaTop 的适用性为 80%，其他 h-I 的适用性为 100%。AUROCs 范围从 0.55（h-Scholar）到 0.88（h-HepaTop）。h-I 高度相关，但不完全一致：ICC 范围从 0.01（h-WoS 与 h-Scholar）到 0.53（h-WoS 与 h-Scopus；P<0.0001）。h-Scopus、h-WoS 和 h-HepaTop 的 AUROCs 之间没有差异，但 h-Scholar 的准确性较低。与 h-HepaTop 结合后，调整了危险因素、科研年龄和同名因素的 h-WoS AUROC 从 0.83 增加到 0.94（P=0.005）。