美国学术型骨肌放射学教师的学术产出：临床轨与研究/终身轨对比分析
本研究基于ACGME公开项目和骨肌fellowship名单，对610名美国学术型骨肌放射学教师进行横断面文献计量分析，比较临床轨与研究/终身轨的学术产出。结果显示轨别差异随职称而异：临床轨助理教授的论文数、被引次数和h指数均高于研究/终身轨助理教授（均p<0.01）；副教授间无显著差异（均p>0.05）；研究/终身轨正教授的论文数高于临床轨正教授（p=0.004），h指数差异边缘显著（p=0.056）。学术年龄和职称解释了约97-99%的文献计量变异，轨别和性别贡献很小。
要点
- 轨别对学术产出的影响因职称而异，不可一概而论。
- 临床轨助理教授文献计量指标反而高于研究/终身轨助理教授。
- 学术年龄和职称是文献计量变异的主要解释因素。
诊断标准与关键数值
- 临床轨助理教授论文数、被引次数和h指数均高于研究/终身轨助理教授（均p<0.01）。
- 副教授间各文献计量指标无显著轨别差异（均p>0.05）。
- 研究/终身轨正教授论文数高于临床轨正教授（p=0.004），h指数差异边缘显著（p=0.056）。
- 所有职称合并后，经职称校正的各指标轨别差异均无统计学意义，校正学术年龄后基本不变。
- 方差分解显示学术年龄和职称解释约97-99%的已解释变异，轨别和性别贡献极小。
以上解读依据论文摘要（全文未开放获取或许可不允许翻译转载）。
英文原文（摘要）· 点击展开
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: In U.S. academic radiology, clinical and tenure/research tracks can carry different expectations for scholarship. Accordingly, this study compared bibliometric productivity between clinical-track and tenure/research-track U.S. academic musculoskeletal (MSK) radiology faculty across ranks.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional bibliometric study of U.S. academic MSK radiology faculty was conducted using the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) public program directory and an MSK fellowship program list. Academic rank (assistant, associate, or full professor) and career track were assigned from publicly available institutional titles. Academic age was defined as years from first indexed publication to 2025.
RESULTS: Among 610 faculty, 259 (42.5%) were clinical track and 351 (57.5%) tenure/research. Clinical-track assistant professors had higher publications, citations, and h-index than tenure/research assistant professors (all p < 0.01). No significant track differences were observed among associate professors (all p > 0.05). Tenure/research full professors had higher publication counts than clinical-track full professors (p = 0.004), with a borderline higher h-index (p = 0.056). Across all ranks combined, rank-adjusted differences in all metrics were not statistically significant and were mostly unchanged after accounting for academic age. Variance decomposition showed that academic age and rank accounted for nearly all explained variability in bibliometric measures (∼97-99%), whereas track and sex contributed minimally.
CONCLUSION: Track-related differences in bibliometric productivity were rank-dependent, with higher metrics among clinical-track assistant professors and higher publication counts among tenure/research-track full professors. Overall, academic age and rank accounted for most variability in bibliometric measures.
引用
- Eshraghi N, Radmard M, Yousem DM, et al. Scholarly Productivity in U.S. Academic Musculoskeletal Radiology Faculty: Clinical Track Versus Tenure/Research Track Analysis. Acad Radiol. 2026. PMID: 42097967. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2026.04.023
供执业医师工作参考，不替代临床判断；数值与分级以指南原文为准。