John Ioannidis and co-authors [1] created a publicly available database of top-cited scientists in the world. This database, intended to address the misuse of citation metrics, has generated a lot of interest among the scientific community, institutions, and media. Many institutions used this as a yardstick to assess the quality of researchers. At the same time, some people look at this list with skepticism citing problems with the methodology used. Two separate databases are created based on career-long and, single recent year impact. This database is created using Scopus data from Elsevier[1-3]. The Scientists included in this database are classified into 22 scientific fields and 174 sub-fields. The parameters considered for this analysis are total citations from 1996 to 2022 (nc9622), h index in 2022 (h22), c-score, and world rank based on c-score (Rank ns). Citations without self-cites are considered in all cases (indicated as ns). In the case of a single-year case, citations during 2022 (nc2222) instead of Nc9622 are considered.

To evaluate the robustness of c-score-based ranking, I have done a detailed analysis of the matrix parameters of the last 25 years (1998-2022) of Nobel laureates of Physics, chemistry, and medicine, and compared them with the top 100 rank holders in the list. The latest career-long and single-year-based databases (2022) were used for this analysis. The details of the analysis are presented below: Though the article says the selection is based on the top 100,000 scientists by c-score (with and without self-citations) or a percentile rank of 2% or above in the sub-field, the actual career-based ranking list has 204644 names[1]. The single-year database contains 210199 names. So, the list published contains ~ the top 4% of scientists. In the career-based rank list, for the person with the lowest rank of 4809825, the nc9622, h22, and c-score were 41, 3, and 1.3632, respectively. Whereas for the person with the No.1 rank in the list, the nc9622, h22, and c-score were 345061, 264, and 5.5927, respectively. Three people on the list had less than 100 citations during 96-2022, 1155 people had an h22 less than 10, and 6 people had a C-score less than 2.
In the single year-based rank list, for the person with the lowest rank (6547764), the nc2222, h22, and c-score were 1, 1, and 0. 6, respectively. Whereas for the person with the No.1 rank, the nc9622, h22, and c-score were 34582, 68, and 5.3368, respectively. 4463 people on the list had less than 100 citations in 2022, 71512 people had an h22 less than 10, and 313 people had a C-score less than 2. The entry of many authors having single digit H index and a very meager total number of citations indicates serious shortcomings of the c-score-based ranking methodology. These results indicate shortcomings in the ranking methodology.

Abstract

Master Beneficiary Summary Files (MBSF)

Usage

This dataset page includes some of the tables from the Medicare Data in PHS's possession. Other Medicare tables are included on other dataset pages on the PHS Data Portal. Depending upon your research question and your DUA with CMS, you may only need tables from a subset of the Medicare dataset pages, or you may need tables from all of them.

The location of each of the Medicare tables (i.e. a chart of which tables are included in each Medicare dataset page) is shown here.

Before Manuscript Submission

All manuscripts (and other items you'd like to publish) must be submitted to

phsdatacore@stanford.edu for approval prior to journal submission.

We will check your cell sizes and citations.

For more information about how to cite PHS and PHS datasets, please visit:

https:/phsdocs.developerhub.io/need-help/citing-phs-data-core

Documentation

Metadata access is required to view this section.

Section 2

Metadata access is required to view this section.

Usage Notes

Metadata access is required to view this section.

The global market for integrated medicine and engineering education is experiencing robust growth, projected at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 8% from 2025 to 2033. This expansion is driven by several key factors. Firstly, the increasing demand for healthcare professionals skilled in both medical science and engineering principles is fueling the need for specialized programs. Advances in medical technology, such as robotics, AI, and bioprinting, require professionals with a holistic understanding of both engineering design and its biological applications. Furthermore, the integration of data science and informatics into healthcare necessitates professionals capable of managing and interpreting vast datasets for improved patient care and medical research. The growing aging population, coupled with a rising prevalence of chronic diseases, further intensifies the demand for such skilled individuals. The market is segmented by subject areas including biomedical engineering, health informatics, clinical engineering, and robotics in healthcare; and by course levels, encompassing undergraduate, graduate, and certificate programs. Major players are established universities globally, each with its unique strengths and competitive strategies, focusing on program innovation, industry partnerships, and attracting top faculty. Geographic distribution reveals strong market presence in North America and Europe, owing to established research infrastructure and well-funded educational institutions. However, the APAC region, particularly India and China, shows significant growth potential driven by rapid economic development and increased investment in healthcare infrastructure and education. The market's future growth hinges on sustained investment in research and development, industry-academia collaborations, and government initiatives promoting STEM education. Challenges include the high cost of specialized equipment and training, along with the need for standardized curriculum and accreditation across different regions and institutions. Ultimately, the market's trajectory reflects a critical need for a multidisciplinary approach to address evolving healthcare challenges, presenting substantial opportunities for educational institutions and technology providers alike.

Abstract

Stanford has a 20% sample of CMS data. These data are hosted on our secure servers and can only be accessed after completing a reuse application with CMS. You can explore these data using our CMS Public files which have no restrictions.

Documentation

**A checklist for the steps in gaining access to the CMS RIF 20% sample can be found here: **CMS RIF 20% Sample Access Checklist

**ResDAC has full and current **CMS File Availability and Documentation

The Stanford Center for Population Health Sciences has purchased a 20% sample (linked) of all records from for the files as listed below. Where available, we have purchased all data from 2006 – 2018, though for some files all years are not available. We have the following files and years. N/A indicates that we have not purchased these files.

Medicare Claims Inpatient: N/A Outpatient: 2006-2018 SNF: N/A Hospice: 2006-2018 Home Health: 2006-2018 Carrier: 2006-2018 DMERC: 2006-2018

Part D Event with actual Prescriber/Pharmacy identifiersDrug Characteristics: 2006-2018 Prescriber Characteristics File: N/A Formulary File: 2010-2018 Plan Characteristics Files: 2006-2018

MEDPAR All (SS/LS/SNF): 2006-2018

Enrollment/Summary FilesMaster Beneficiary Summary File: All years. Base Beneficiary Summary File A/B/C/D: 2006-2018 Chronic Conditions: 2006-2018 Cost & Utilization: 2006-2018 Other Chronic or Potentially Disabling Conditions: 2006-2018 National Death Index: N/A EDB User View: Current Vital Status File: Current

MiscellaneousMDPPAS: 2008-2018

In the context of the significant court battles that are being fought over the potential copyright infringement involved in distributing the articles and excerpts assigned to students in university courses, this study analyzes 3,391 course syllabuses (2015-2020) from nine provinces and 34 universities across Canada. It identifies the types and proportions of required readings among academic and non-academic sources. Academic readings are assigned on 26.6 percent of the syllabuses, compared to 8.3 percent of syllabuses for media articles and trade book chapters. Among the assigned readings, journal articles lead the list (with 54.3% of all readings), compared to scholarly book chapters (33.5%), media articles (6.0%), and trade book chapters (6.3%). The social sciences lead in the assignment of journal articles and the humanities in trade book chapters, while science was least likely to have assigned readings of any type. The study also found that textbooks are required on a majority of syllabuses (66.0%), with only minor differences in this proportion across science, social sciences, and humanities. The data enable a further analysis at the page level of what the average student is asked to read annually, which, at the Access Copyright current tariff of $14.31 (approved by the Canadian Copyright Board), amounts to a $0.021 per page. This rate is applied in a proposed new “three-step syllabus rule” that avoids double-charging students for academic materials (90.1% of readings by pages), while fairly compensating professional authors and their publishers (9.9%), with the data analyzed here suggesting a $1.40 annual charge per student for their assigned readings.

Methods Using web-scraping strategies that attempted to target course syllabuses at Canadian universities, we collected 5,898 documents from nine of Canada’s ten provinces (Table 1). Of these, 3,916 proved to be unique syllabuses for the period 2015-2020. We eliminated 525 of the syllabuses that referred to assigned readings but did not identify them (as they were to be found in a coursepack or on a website). This left 3,391 syllabuses, of which 2,800 listed readings and/or textbooks, and 591 of them having no required or assigned items, although these courses sometimes listed optional and recommended materials for the students.

These syllabuses come from 34 of Canada’s 96 universities located in nine of Canada’s ten provinces (minus Prince Edward Island). The distribution of syllabuses among institutions ran from a high of 386 syllabuses (11.4% of total) collected from Western University to the two (0.1%) collected from Kwantlen Polytechnic University, with a mean of 99.7 syllabuses per university. Of the 3,391 syllabuses, 86.3 percent (2,926) are in English and 13.7 percent (465) are in French. Courses in science accounted for 42.6 percent (1,443) of the syllabuses, the social sciences 37.1 percent (1,258), and the humanities 20.3 percent (690). No distinction is made between graduate and undergraduate course syllabuses as the Access Copyright tariff applies to all university students. While we were unable to locate a reliable source of information on how many courses are taught in Canada annually, if Canada’s roughly 1.3 million full-time university students may be assumed to be taking 8.2 courses a year (see below fn 6) in classes averaging 25 students across the country, then this sample of 3,391 syllabuses amounts to less than 0.9 percent of the courses offered annually 2015-2020 (Postsecondary enrollments, 2018).