ArticleMedicine2026
Mapping local cluster separation, global community structure, and leadership concentration among the 2025 top 2% dermatology scientists: Beyond rankings.
Article in Medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Stanford/Ioannidis top 2% scientists database provides standardized citation-based indicators for identifying influential researchers, but conventional rankings offer limited information about the structural organization of research communities and collaboration patterns. This study aimed to develop and demonstrate an integrated bibliometric reporting framework for evaluating local cluster separation, global community structure, and leadership concentration among the 2025 top 2% dermatology scientists.
methodsData for 463 dermatology scientists from 35 countries and 360 institutions were analyzed. Country-, institution-, and coauthor-based networks were constructed and evaluated using 3 complementary metrics: silhouette scores (SS) for local cluster separation, normalized modularity (Q*) for global community structure, and the absolute advantage coefficient (AAC) for leadership concentration. Network maps, silhouette plots, profile summaries, and Kano-style visualizations were used to facilitate interpretation. Dirk Schadendorf and Michael R. Hamblin were selected as illustrative scholar-level cases based on their citation and field-ranking prominence.
resultsThe top 100 high-frequency country and institutional nodes formed 15 clusters. The United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Sweden were the most prominent countries, with Harvard Medical School, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, and the University of California, San Francisco emerging as major institutional hubs. Schadendorf was the most highly cited scholar, whereas Hamblin ranked highest within dermatology. Their coauthor networks showed similar local and global cluster characteristics but different leadership-concentration patterns: Schadendorf had SS = 0.70, Q* = 0.75, and AAC = 0.66, whereas Hamblin had SS = 0.71, Q* = 0.74, and AAC = 0.76. Under the proposed AAC classification, these values indicate more distributed multicore collaboration for Schadendorf and greater single-core leadership concentration for Hamblin.
conclusionIntegrating SS, Q*, and AAC provides complementary information on local cluster separation, global community organization, and leadership concentration that cannot be obtained from citation rankings alone. The framework offers a reproducible and interpretable approach for research mapping, comparative assessment, and longitudinal monitoring across scientific disciplines. AAC should be interpreted as an indicator of collaboration leadership concentration rather than direct evidence of mentorship.
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.