Dataset Information

Standing on the shoulders of Pinel, Freud, and Kraepelin: a historiometric inquiry into the histories of psychiatry.

ABSTRACT: History of psychiatry can provide us with a map of the evolution of the practice and identify its major figures. A historiometric approach was taken to available history of psychiatry texts and a historical dictionary. Reliability was tested against data from the journal History of Psychiatry. Those cited in all historical accounts are characterized as major figures, whereas those cited in at least 60% of the sources are considered significant figures. An index of eminence is calculated for each significant figure. The Cronbach's ? was 0.89. Seventy-four significant figures were identified, of which 18 are considered major figures. Among these, Freud, Pinel, and Kraepelin have the highest eminence-in that order. Pinel, Freud, and Kraepelin represent key moments in three epochs in the history of psychiatry: the asylum era, the first biological psychiatry, and the psychoanalytical period, respectively. The most recent historical periods are not well represented in histories of psychiatry.

SUBMITTER: Messias E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4334561 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Standing on the shoulders of Pinel, Freud, and Kraepelin: a historiometric inquiry into the histories of psychiatry.

Messias Erick E Messias Erick E

The Journal of nervous and mental disease 20141101 11

History of psychiatry can provide us with a map of the evolution of the practice and identify its major figures. A historiometric approach was taken to available history of psychiatry texts and a historical dictionary. Reliability was tested against data from the journal History of Psychiatry. Those cited in all historical accounts are characterized as major figures, whereas those cited in at least 60% of the sources are considered significant figures. An index of eminence is calculated for each ...[more]

PMID: 25268155

Similar Datasets

Project description:To analyze survey information regarding mentorship practices and cross-correlate the results with objective metrics of academic productivity among academic radiation oncologists at US Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited residency training programs.An institutional review board-approved survey for the Radiation Oncology Academic Development and Mentorship Assessment Project (ROADMAP) was sent to 1031 radiation oncologists employed at an ACGME-accredited residency training program and administered using an international secure web application designed exclusively to support data capture for research studies. Data collected included demographics, presence of mentorship, and the nature of specific mentoring activities. Productivity metrics, including number of publications, number of citations, h-index, and date of first publication, were collected for each survey respondent from a commercially available online database, and m-index was calculated.A total of 158 academic radiation oncologists completed the survey, 96 of whom reported having an academic/scientific mentor. Faculty with a mentor had higher numbers of publications, citations, and h- and m-indices. Differences in gender and race/ethnicity were not associated with significant differences in mentorship rates, but those with a mentor were more likely to have a PhD degree and were more likely to have more time protected for research. Bivariate fit regression modeling showed a positive correlation between a mentor's h-index and their mentee's h-index (R2=0.16; P<.001). Linear regression also showed significant correlates of higher h-index, in addition to having a mentor (P=.001), included a longer career duration (P<.001) and fewer patients in treatment (P=.02).Mentorship is widely believed to be important to career development and academic productivity. These results emphasize the importance of identifying and striving to overcome potential barriers to effective mentorship.

Project description:BackgroundConflicts of interest in biomedical research can influence research results and drive research agendas away from public health priorities. Previous agenda-setting studies share two shortfalls: they only account for direct connections between academic institutions and firms, as well as potential bias based on researchers' personal beliefs. This paper's goal is to determine the key actors and contents of the prevailing health and biomedical sciences (HBMS) research agenda, overcoming these shortfalls.MethodsWe performed a bibliometric and lexical analysis of 95,415 scientific articles published between 1999 and 2018 in the highest impact factor journals within HBMS, using the Web of Science database and the CorText platform. HBMS's prevailing knowledge network of institutions was proxied with network maps where nodes represent affiliations and edges the most frequent co-authorships. The content of the prevailing HBMS research agenda was depicted through network maps of prevalent multi-terms found in titles, keywords, and abstracts.ResultsThe HBMS research agendas of large private firms and leading academic institutions are intertwined. The prevailing HBMS agenda is mostly based on molecular biology (40% of the most frequent multi-terms), with an inclination towards cancer and cardiovascular research (15 and 8% of the most frequent multi-terms, respectively). Studies on pathogens and biological vectors related to recent epidemics are marginal (1% of the most frequent multi-terms). Content of the prevailing HBMS research agenda prioritizes research on pharmacological intervention over research on socio-environmental factors influencing disease onset or progression and overlooks, among others, the study of infectious diseases.ConclusionsPharmaceutical corporations contribute to set HBMS's prevailing research agenda, which is mainly focused on a few diseases and research topics. A more balanced research agenda, together with epistemological approaches that consider socio-environmental factors associated with disease spreading, could contribute to being better prepared to prevent and treat more diverse pathologies and to improve overall health outcomes.

Dataset Information

Standing on the shoulders of Pinel, Freud, and Kraepelin: a historiometric inquiry into the histories of psychiatry.

Publications

Standing on the shoulders of Pinel, Freud, and Kraepelin: a historiometric inquiry into the histories of psychiatry.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets