ReviewNeuroepidemiology2026
National-, Institutional-, and Individual-Level Determinants of Neurology and Neurosurgery Research Excellence: An Analysis of Stanford-Elsevier Lists of the Top 2% Scholars Worldwide (2017-2023).
Review in Neuroepidemiology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeurologic research output is extensive, yet influential contributions remain unevenly distributed across countries and institutions. Prior studies have emphasized productivity rather than excellence, limiting understanding of where high-impact neurologic scholarship is concentrated and which structural conditions may support its development.
methodsSeven annual releases (2017-2023) of the Stanford-Elsevier Lists (SELs) were analyzed between July and August 2025, and Excellent Neurologic Scholars (ENS) were extracted from the career-long and single-year SEL datasets of each release. A multilevel ecological framework was used to examine national, institutional, and individual determinants of neurologic research excellence. The main outcome measures were ENS counts, composite score, modified H-index, and citation count excluding self-citations.
resultsHigh-income countries accounted for 97.8% and 95.8% of ENS, respectively, with the USA alone contributing nearly half (50.1% and 47.1%). English-speaking countries collectively represented over two-thirds of ENS, while German ranked a distant second (∼9%). The top 20 institutions hosted 23.1% and 24.1% of ENS, with the University of California (4.5% and 4.4%) leading, underscoring marked institutional elitism. Gender disparities were evident: women comprised 18.3% of ENS in the career-long SEL and 22.4% in the single-year SEL, with males consistently achieving higher bibliometric indicators. Academic age emerged as the only stable predictor of excellence, with each additional year increasing citation counts (β = 135.1 and 2.4). Regression analyses confirmed independent effects of male gender, English language, income level, and HDI, while attenuating bivariate associations.
conclusionNeurologic research excellence is disproportionately concentrated in high-income, anglophone settings and elite institutions, with persistent gender gaps. Academic age remained the strongest predictor, underscoring the need for more context-sensitive and equitable policies to support neurologic scholarship across diverse settings.
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.