Institutional Contributions to the Radiology Literature: A Subspecialty Assessment

IF 4.7 2区医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING

Academic Radiology Pub Date : 2026-10-01 Epub Date: 2026-07-31 DOI:10.1016/j.acra.2026.06.065

Armin Tafazolimoghadam M.D., Mahla Radmard M.D., David M. Yousem M.D., M.B.A., Rohini Nadgir M.D.

{"title":"Institutional Contributions to the Radiology Literature: A Subspecialty Assessment","authors":"Armin Tafazolimoghadam M.D., Mahla Radmard M.D., David M. Yousem M.D., M.B.A., Rohini Nadgir M.D.","doi":"10.1016/j.acra.2026.06.065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Rationale and Objectives</h3><div>Academic radiologists concentrate scholarly activity within defined subspecialties, producing heterogeneous institutional research profiles. The relationship between institutional bibliometric performance and National Institutes of Health (NIH) radiology funding across subspecialties is incompletely characterized. We evaluated institutional scholarly output across U.S. radiology subspecialties and its association with NIH funding.</div></div><div>Academic radiologists concentrate scholarly activity within defined subspecialties, producing heterogeneous institutional research profiles. The relationship between institutional bibliometric performance and National Institutes of Health (NIH) radiology funding across subspecialties is incompletely characterized. We evaluated institutional scholarly output across U.S. radiology subspecialties and its association with NIH funding.</div><div><h3>Materials and Methods</h3><div>This cross-sectional study analyzed U.S. academic radiology faculty using Scopus data (March 2026). Faculty were identified from institutional websites and categorized into eight subspecialties. Institutional publications, citations, and h-index values were aggregated and compared with 2025 NIH radiology funding rankings from the Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research using Spearman’s rank correlation.</div></div><div>This cross-sectional study analyzed U.S. academic radiology faculty using Scopus data (March 2026). Faculty were identified from institutional websites and categorized into eight subspecialties. Institutional publications, citations, and h-index values were aggregated and compared with 2025 NIH radiology funding rankings from the Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research using Spearman’s rank correlation.</div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>121 institutions encompassing 6488 faculty were included. Scholarly output was highly concentrated: the 5 most productive institutions accounted for 21% of publications and 23% of citations, and the top 25 for 61% and 67%. NIH funding was even more concentrated (top 5, 30%; top 25, 81%). Mayo Clinic–Rochester led in total publications (18,197) and citations (774,565). Rankings by total publications, total citations, and summed faculty h-index were closely aligned, whereas per-faculty metrics highlighted a distinct group of smaller programs. Subspecialty leadership varied substantially. Among 62 matched institutions, total publications, summed faculty h-index, total citations, and faculty count correlated most strongly with NIH funding rank (ρ = 0.748, 0.745, 0.719, and 0.702, respectively; all p < 0.001).</div></div><div>121 institutions encompassing 6488 faculty were included. Scholarly output was highly concentrated: the 5 most productive institutions accounted for 21% of publications and 23% of citations, and the top 25 for 61% and 67%. NIH funding was even more concentrated (top 5, 30%; top 25, 81%). Mayo Clinic–Rochester led in total publications (18,197) and citations (774,565). Rankings by total publications, total citations, and summed faculty h-index were closely aligned, whereas per-faculty metrics highlighted a distinct group of smaller programs. Subspecialty leadership varied substantially. Among 62 matched institutions, total publications, summed faculty h-index, total citations, and faculty count correlated most strongly with NIH funding rank (ρ = 0.748, 0.745, 0.719, and 0.702, respectively; all p < 0.001).</div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Radiology scholarly productivity is concentrated within a few dozen academic centers, with substantial subspecialty heterogeneity within institutions. Aggregate bibliometric indicators show moderate concordance with NIH funding, suggesting that cumulative scholarly output reflects institutional research strength.</div></div><div>Radiology scholarly productivity is concentrated within a few dozen academic centers, with substantial subspecialty heterogeneity within institutions. Aggregate bibliometric indicators show moderate concordance with NIH funding, suggesting that cumulative scholarly output reflects institutional research strength.</div>","PeriodicalId":50928,"journal":{"name":"Academic Radiology","volume":"33 10","pages":"Pages 4218-4231"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1076633226004733","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/7/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rationale and Objectives

Academic radiologists concentrate scholarly activity within defined subspecialties, producing heterogeneous institutional research profiles. The relationship between institutional bibliometric performance and National Institutes of Health (NIH) radiology funding across subspecialties is incompletely characterized. We evaluated institutional scholarly output across U.S. radiology subspecialties and its association with NIH funding.

Materials and Methods

This cross-sectional study analyzed U.S. academic radiology faculty using Scopus data (March 2026). Faculty were identified from institutional websites and categorized into eight subspecialties. Institutional publications, citations, and h-index values were aggregated and compared with 2025 NIH radiology funding rankings from the Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research using Spearman’s rank correlation.

Results

121 institutions encompassing 6488 faculty were included. Scholarly output was highly concentrated: the 5 most productive institutions accounted for 21% of publications and 23% of citations, and the top 25 for 61% and 67%. NIH funding was even more concentrated (top 5, 30%; top 25, 81%). Mayo Clinic–Rochester led in total publications (18,197) and citations (774,565). Rankings by total publications, total citations, and summed faculty h-index were closely aligned, whereas per-faculty metrics highlighted a distinct group of smaller programs. Subspecialty leadership varied substantially. Among 62 matched institutions, total publications, summed faculty h-index, total citations, and faculty count correlated most strongly with NIH funding rank (ρ = 0.748, 0.745, 0.719, and 0.702, respectively; all p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Radiology scholarly productivity is concentrated within a few dozen academic centers, with substantial subspecialty heterogeneity within institutions. Aggregate bibliometric indicators show moderate concordance with NIH funding, suggesting that cumulative scholarly output reflects institutional research strength.

查看原文本刊更多论文

机构对放射学文献的贡献：一个亚专业评估。

基本原理和目标：学术放射科医生集中学术活动在定义的亚专业，产生异质的机构研究概况。机构文献计量学绩效与美国国立卫生研究院（NIH）跨亚专业放射学资助之间的关系尚未完全表征。我们评估了美国放射学亚专业的机构学术产出及其与NIH资助的关系。材料和方法：本横断面研究使用Scopus数据分析了美国学术放射学教师（2026年3月）。教师从机构网站上确定，并分为八个亚专业。汇总机构出版物、引用和h指数值，并使用Spearman等级相关性与蓝岭医学研究所的2025年NIH放射学资助排名进行比较。结果：共纳入121所院校6488名教师。学术产出高度集中：产量最高的5家机构分别占总发表量的21%和总引用量的23%，前25家机构分别占总引用量的61%和67%。NIH的资助更加集中（前5名，30%；前25名，81%）。梅奥诊所-罗切斯特在总出版物（18,197）和引用（774,565）方面领先。总发表量、总引用量和总教员h指数的排名密切相关，而每个教员的指标则突出了一组不同的小型项目。亚专业领导力差异很大。在62所匹配的机构中，总发表量、教员h指数、总引用量和教员数量与NIH资助排名相关性最强（ρ分别为0.748、0.745、0.719和0.702，p均< 0.001）。结论：放射学学术生产力集中在几十个学术中心内，在机构内具有实质性的亚专业异质性。综合文献计量指标显示与NIH资助适度一致，表明累积学术产出反映了机构的研究实力。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Academic Radiology 医学-核医学

CiteScore

7.60

自引率

10.40%

发文量

432

审稿时长

18 days

期刊介绍： Academic Radiology publishes original reports of clinical and laboratory investigations in diagnostic imaging, the diagnostic use of radioactive isotopes, computed tomography, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, digital subtraction angiography, image-guided interventions and related techniques. It also includes brief technical reports describing original observations, techniques, and instrumental developments; state-of-the-art reports on clinical issues, new technology and other topics of current medical importance; meta-analyses; scientific studies and opinions on radiologic education; and letters to the Editor.