ArticleFrontiers in research metrics and analytics2026
Assessment of H-index and research impact amongst academic medical oncologists in Canada.
Article in Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The h-index is widely used to measure academic productivity in medicine, yet data on research output among academic medical oncologists in Canada remain limited. This study aimed to characterize the academic profiles of Canadian medical oncologists and identify factors associated with higher h-index scores. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of medical oncologists affiliated with Canadian universities was conducted using publicly available faculty listings, Scopus Author IDs, and professional certification records. Key demographic and academic variables-including sex, years since certification, academic rank, graduate degrees, region of practice, and Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) funding-were collected. Univariate and multivariate log-linear regression models were used to assess the relationship between these factors and the h-index. Results: A total of 391 medical oncologists were identified across 15 Canadian institutions. The median national h-index was 14.0, with regional and sex-based differences noted in descriptive statistics. However, in adjusted analyses, only higher academic rank and receipt of CIHR funding were significantly associated with increased h-index values. Other variables, including sex, graduate degrees, region, and years of practice, were not significant predictors of academic productivity. Conclusion: These findings highlight the role of institutional advancement and research funding in supporting academic output and may guide future research, policy development, and evaluation practices in academic oncology.
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.