ArticlePeerJ2017
A systematic review of differential rate of use of the word "evolve" across fields.
Article in PeerJ, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough evolution is the driving force behind many of today's major public health and agriculture issues, both journalists and scientific researchers often do not use the term "evolve" in discussions of these topics.
methodsIn a total of 1,066 articles and 716 papers selected from 25 US newspapers and 34 scientific journals, we assess usage of the word "evolve" and its substitute words in the contexts of cancer tumor drug resistance, HIV drug resistance, mosquito insecticide resistance, and weed pesticide resistance.
resultsWe find significant differences in the use of "evolve" among fields and sources. "Evolve" is used most when discussing weed pesticide resistance (25.9% in newspapers, 52.4% in journals) and least when discussing cancer tumor drug resistance (3.9% in newspapers, 9.8% in journals). On average, scientific journals use "evolve" more often (22.2%) than newspapers (7.8%). Different types of journals (general science, general clinical, cancer specific, and drug resistance specific) show significantly different "evolve" usages when discussing cancer tumor drug resistance. DISCUSSION: We examine potential explanations of these findings, such as the relatively recent framing of cancer in evolutionary terms, before looking at consequences of low "evolve" usage and of differential "evolve" usage across fields. Use of the word "evolve" may not reflect current understanding of the problems we examine. However, given that our ability to tackle resistance issues relies upon accurate understandings of what causes and exacerbates resistance, use of the word "evolve" when called for may help us confront these issues in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.