A Descriptive Analysis of Countries Represented by Authors' and Editorial Review Board Members' Institutional Affiliations in the Journal of Music Therapy, 1998-2022.

The Journal of Music Therapy (JMT) authors' and editorial review board members' (ERBM) affiliation locations represent an aspect of diversity through differing cultures and political, healthcare, and educational systems. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the countries of JMT authors' and ERBM's institutional affiliations from 1998 to 2022. We established inclusion and exclusion criteria, operationally defined categories, and built databases. A total of 433 articles met our inclusion criteria. Most articles were published by authors/author teams located in the United States (n = 305; 70.44%) or in a single international country (n = 85; 19.63%), while fewer articles were published by author teams located in multiple international countries (n = 23, 5.31%) or in international countries and the United States (n = 20, 4.62%). Authors were from 21 countries, and there tended to be a slight decline over time in articles by United States authors. When examining the total countries represented, United States authors (n = 330) had the most articles followed by Australia (n = 32), Norway (n = 18), England (n = 14), Israel (n = 13), and Canada, Denmark, and South Korea (all n = 12). There were 632 total JMT ERBM with 470 located within the United States and 162 located internationally. Although all ERBM's affiliations were in the United States in 1998, these data gradually changed. There were more ERBM located internationally than in the United States from 2020 to 2022. Most international ERBM were from Australia, Canada, England, Israel, and Spain. Implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research are provided.

Global health collaborative research: beyond mandatory collaboration to mandatory authorship.

Collaborative research between the global north and global south is common and growing in number. Due to inability of local governments to fund research, global north actors provide the bulk of research funding. While providing mutual benefits, global collaborative research projects are far from ideal. In this paper, we review the authorship discrepancies in global collaborative research, discuss preventive measures in place and their shortfalls, and recommend an intervention to address the problem. Malawi research guidelines recommend collaboration between foreign and local researchers in locally conducted research. However, there is no provision requiring joint authorship in final published papers. Journal recommendations on authorship criteria exist, but they can disadvantage low- and middle-income country researchers in collaborative projects because of exclusionary interpretations of guidelines. For example, the requirement for authors to make substantial contributions to conception or design of the work may favor research grant holders, often from the global north. Systematic and holistic changes proposed to address power asymmetries at the core of the problem have been proposed. However, these proposals may take a long time to produce change. Ad interim, local institutions can take more direct action to address inequalities by establishing offices of research integrity to enforce mandates to increase opportunities for authorship in collaborative research.

Changing roles of the corresponding author - Consequences for the accessibility of medical information.

It appears that ever more frequently the corresponding author of a multi-author manuscript is not what he/she was originally supposed to be: the most involved researcher with the best overview concerning the presented study. Numerous journals now use the term 'corresponding author', however, for the author who acts as a kind of secretary for the submitted manuscript, irrespective of his/her expertize in the subject. Another problem is that a significant number of universities give more scientific credits to the corresponding author than to his/her co-authors, which fairly commonly results in granting the corresponding authorship to the student or young scientist who needs scientific credits most urgently for his/her academic career. Consequently, readers of a multi-author article are nowadays hardly able to judge which author of an interesting article might best be contacted for additional information. An increasing number of journals seem unaware of the problems that this changing role of the corresponding author may cause. The present contribution both mentions the main resulting problems and proposes possible solutions.

A Descriptive Analysis of Collaboration and Funding of Articles in the Journal of Music Therapy, 1998-2021.

Music therapists may have strategic advantages for collaborative and interdisciplinary research. As such, there is a need to analyze authorship teams as well as funding in the premiere United States-based music therapy research journal. The purpose of this descriptive study was to analyze independent, collaborative, interdisciplinary, and funded research in the Journal of Music Therapy (JMT) from 1998 to 2021. We built a database of JMT articles from 1998 to 2021 and (1) counted the number of authors contributing to articles, (2) categorized articles as independent, collaborative, or interdisciplinary, and (3) counted the number of articles that received funding. From 1998 to 2021, there were 423 total articles that met our inclusion criteria published in JMT. Although two or more authors contributed to most papers, a high percentage of articles were published by single authors (n = 185, 43.74%). More articles were interdisciplinary (n = 162, 38.30%) than collaborative (n = 90, 21.28%). There was a trend for fewer independent articles in more recent years. Although most articles were not funded (n = 312, 73.76%), interdisciplinary articles were most likely to be funded (n = 72, 64.86% of funded articles) while independent articles were least likely to be funded (n = 17, 15.32% of funded articles). General trends indicate higher frequencies of funded papers in more recent years. Research articles published in JMT have become increasingly team-based, interdisciplinary, and funded. Implications regarding the future of music therapy research, Music Therapy Research 2025, limitations of the study, and suggestions for future research are provided.

Gender Distribution Associated With the Journal Wilderness & Environmental Medicine.

INTRODUCTION: Publication and peer review are fundamental to career advancement in science and academic medicine. Studies demonstrate that women are underrepresented in science publishing. We evaluated the gender distribution of contributors to Wilderness & Environmental Medicine (WEM) from 2010 through 2019. METHODS: We extracted author data from ScienceDirect, reviewer data from the WEM Editorial Manager database, and editorial board data from journal records. Gender (female and male) was classified using automated probability-based assessment with Genderize.io software. RESULTS: A total of 2297 unique authors were published over the 10-y span, generating 3613 authorships, of which gender was classified for 96% (n=3480). Women represented 26% (n=572) of all authors, which breaks down to 22% of all, 19% of first, 28% of second, and 18% of last authorships. Women represented 20% of peer reviewers (508/2517), 20% of reviewers-in-training (19/72), and 16% of editorial board members (7/45). The proportion of female authors, first authors, and reviewers increased over time. Women received fewer invitations per reviewer than men (mean 2.1 [95% CI 2.0-2.3] vs 2.4 [95% CI 2.3-2.5]; P=0.004), accepted reviews at similar rates (mean 73 vs 71%; P=0.214), and returned reviews 1.4 d later (mean 10.4 [CI 9.5-11.3] vs 9.0 d [95% CI 8.5-9.6]; P=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: While female representation increased over the study period, women comprise a minority of WEM authors, peer reviewers, and editorial board members. Gender equity could be improved by identifying and eliminating barriers to participation, addressing any potential bias in review processes, implementing strategies to increase female-authored submissions, and increasing mentorship and training.

Gender differences in authorship prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic in research submissions to Occupational and Environmental Medicine (2017-2021).

OBJECTIVE: To explore whether the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted productivity of female academics in the field of occupational and environmental health, by examining trends in male and female authorship of submissions during and prior to the COVID-19 pandemic in Occupational and Environmental Medicine. METHODS: Administrative data on submissions between January 2017 and November 2021 were obtained through databases held at BMJ journals. Author gender was identified using an existing algorithm based on matching names to social media accounts. The number and proportion of female and male primary (first) and senior (last) authors were examined for each quarter, and the average change in share of monthly submissions from male authors in the months since the pandemic compared with corresponding months prior to the pandemic were identified using regression models estimating least squares means. RESULTS: Among 2286 (64.7%) and 2335 (66.1%) manuscripts for which first and last author gender were identified, respectively, 49.3% of prepandemic submissions were from male first authors, increasing to 55.4% in the first year of the pandemic (difference of 6.1%, 95% CI 1.3% to 10.7%), before dropping to 46.6% from April 2021 onwards. Quarterly counts identified a large increase in submissions from male authors during the first year after the onset of the pandemic, and a smaller increase from female authors. The proportion of male last authors did not change significantly during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that there has been an increase in male productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic within the field of occupational and environmental health research that is present to a lesser extent among women.

Consensus statement on measures to promote equitable authorship in the publication of research from international partnerships.

Despite the acknowledged injustice and widespread existence of parachute research studies conducted in low- or middle-income countries by researchers from institutions in high-income countries, there is currently no pragmatic guidance for how academic journals should evaluate manuscript submissions and challenge this practice. We assembled a multidisciplinary group of editors and researchers with expertise in international health research to develop this consensus statement. We reviewed relevant existing literature and held three workshops to present research data and holistically discuss the concept of equitable authorship and the role of academic journals in the context of international health research partnerships. We subsequently developed statements to guide prospective authors and journal editors as to how they should address this issue. We recommend that for manuscripts that report research conducted in low- or middle-income countries by collaborations including partners from one or more high-income countries, authors should submit accompanying structured reflexivity statements. We provide specific questions that these statements should address and suggest that journals should transparently publish reflexivity statements with accepted manuscripts. We also provide guidance to journal editors about how they should assess the structured statements when making decisions on whether to accept or reject submitted manuscripts. We urge journals across disciplines to adopt these recommendations to accelerate the changes needed to halt the practice of parachute research.

The global status of research in breast cancer liver metastasis: a bibliometric and visualized analysis.

This study aimed to investigate the distribution laws and research frontiers of international literature, so as to present a holistic bibliometric evaluation of the studies on breast cancer liver metastasis(BCLM). Data were collected from the Web of Science Core Collection database, including publications, year, country, journal, author and keywords. The software VOSviewer and CiteSpace were used for bibliometric coupling, co-authorship, co-citation and co-occurrence analysis. In total, 1,031 publications were analyzed from 2004 to 2020 on BCLM. The year with the highest number of publications was 2006, with 103 papers. The United States, followed by China and Germany were the leading countries on BCLM, accounting for 59% of the whole. The journals that published about BCLM were mainly located in Q1/Q2. Keywords co-occurrence analysis divides BCLM into five clusters:'basic research', 'auxiliary diagnosis and therapy', 'liver resection', 'clinical trial' and 'prognosis'. Main treatment therapies were the latest focus. Burst detection indicated that the trends in BCLM concentrated on subtype and SEER. There is apparently brighter perspective for BCLM research in the coming years, especially in liver resection, subtype and bioinformatics. The consequence of our study as the exclusive scientific evaluation offered an integral overview of BCLM, particularly for research focus and future directions, which can further accurately guide scholars on diagnosis, treatment, and personalized prevention.

A Systematic Review of the Dietary Choline Impact on Cognition from a Psychobiological Approach: Insights from Animal Studies.

The influence of dietary choline availability on cognition is currently being suggested by animal and human studies which have focused mainly on the early developmental stages. The aim of this review is to systematically search through the available rodent (rats and mice) research published during the last two decades that has assessed the effect of dietary choline interventions on cognition and related attentional and emotional processes for the entire life span. The review has been conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement guidelines covering peer-reviewed studies included in PubMed and Scopus databases. After excluding duplicates and applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria we have reviewed a total of 44 articles published in 25 journals with the contribution of 146 authors. The results are analyzed based on the timing and duration of the dietary intervention and the behavioral tests applied, amongst other variables. Overall, the available results provide compelling support for the relevance of dietary choline in cognition. The beneficial effects of choline supplementation is more evident in recognition rather than in spatial memory tasks when assessing nonpathological samples whilst these effects extend to other relational memory tasks in neuropathological models. However, the limited number of studies that have evaluated other cognitive functions suggest a wider range of potential effects. More research is needed to draw conclusions about the critical variables and the nature of the impact on specific cognitive processes. The results are discussed on the terms of the theoretical framework underlying the relationship between the brain systems and cognition.

Collaboration and knowledge generation in an 18-year quality improvement research programme in Australian Indigenous primary healthcare: a coauthorship network analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Though multidisciplinary research networks support the practice and effectiveness of continuous quality improvement (CQI) programmes, their characteristics and development are poorly understood. In this study, we examine publication outputs from a research network in Australian Indigenous primary healthcare (PHC) to assess to what extent the research network changed over time. SETTING: Australian CQI research network in Indigenous PHC from 2002 to 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Authors from peer-reviewed journal articles and books published by the network. DESIGN: Coauthor networks across four phases of the network (2002-2004; 2005-2009; 2010-2014; 2015-2019) were constructed based on author affiliations and examined using social network analysis methods. Descriptive characteristics included organisation types, Indigenous representation, gender, student authorship and thematic research trends. RESULTS: We identified 128 publications written by 308 individual authors from 79 different organisations. Publications increased in number and diversity over each funding phase. During the final phase, publication outputs accelerated for organisations, students, project officers, Indigenous and female authors. Over time there was also a shift in research themes to encompass new clinical areas and social, environmental or behavioural determinants of health. Average degree (8.1), clustering (0.81) and diameter (3) indicated a well-connected network, with a core-periphery structure in each phase (p≤0.03) rather than a single central organisation (degree centralisation=0.55-0.65). Academic organisations dominated the core structure in all funding phases. CONCLUSION: Collaboration in publications increased with network consolidation and expansion. Increased productivity was associated with increased authorship diversity and a decentralised network, suggesting these may be important factors in enhancing research impact and advancing the knowledge and practice of CQI in PHC. Publication diversity and growth occurred mainly in the fourth phase, suggesting long-term relationship building among diverse partners is required to facilitate participatory research in CQI. Despite improvements, further work is needed to address inequities in female authorship and Indigenous authorship.

Bibliometric Analysis of Integrative Medicine Studies from 2000 to 2019.

Integrative medicine has become a vital component of patient care. It provides patient-centered care that is focused on prevention and overall well-being. As there has been a growing number of patients favoring a blend of conventional, complementary and alternative approaches, integrative medicine has exceeded beyond the evaluation of complementary therapies. However, it is noteworthy that there has been a dilemma of providing substantial evidence supporting the efficacy of some complementary and alternative therapies. This study's goals were to analyze publication trends, most productive journals, most productive funding agencies, most productive authors, most relevant keywords, and countries in the field of integrative medicine research. Additionally, science mapping included country collaboration analysis and thematic evolution analysis. The findings from this study showed a constant rise in annual growth of publications from 2000 to 2019; the United States was dominant in various analysis categories. In conclusion, a comprehensive review of the evolution of research of integrative medicine will help healthcare providers understand an overview of the present status while encouraging more evidence-based research for the betterment of integrative patient care.

Chiropractic case reports: a review and bibliometric analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine publication trends, gaps, and predictors of citation of chiropractic case reports (CRs). METHODS: A bibliometric review was conducted by searching PubMed, Index to Chiropractic Literature (ICL), and Google Scholar to identify PubMed-indexed CRs, which were screened according to selection criteria. Case reports were categorized by International Classification of Disease (ICD-10) code, patient age, topic describing case management or adverse effects of care, focus being spinal or non-spinal, journal type, integrative authorship, title metrics, and citation metrics. Binary logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of citations per year and total citations greater than the median values. RESULTS: The search identified 1176 chiropractic CRs meeting selection criteria. There was an increasing trend of CRs having a case management topic, non-spinal focus, non-chiropractic journal, neuromusculoskeletal-focus, diagnosis of vascular pathology, and a decreasing trend of adverse effect vascular pathology CRs. Independent predictors of greater total citations (or citation rate) included ICD-10 categories of perinatal conditions, infections, "case" in title, case management topic, and physical therapy, integrative, and dental journal type. Predictors of fewer citations included diseases of the blood, neoplasms, other findings not elsewhere classified, a title > 11 words, and multidisciplinary authorship. ICD-10 categories describing non-musculoskeletal diseases and special populations such as pediatrics, pregnancy, and perinatal conditions had few CRs. CONCLUSION: Chiropractic CRs are diversifying from spine-related topics. Chiropractors are encouraged to publish objective, structured CRs within defined research gaps. Published CRs can inform the design of future research studies with a higher level of clinical relevance and evidence.

Social Media Influence Does Not Reflect Scholarly or Clinical Activity in Real Life.

BACKGROUND: Social media has become a major source of communication in medicine. We aimed to understand the relationship between physicians' social media influence and their scholarly and clinical activity. METHODS: We identified attending US electrophysiologists on Twitter. We compared physician Twitter activity to (1) scholarly publication record (h-index) and (2) clinical volume according to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The ratio of observed versus expected (obs/exp) Twitter followers was calculated based on each scholarly (K-index) and clinical activity. RESULTS: We identified 284 physicians, with mean Twitter age of 5.0 (SD, 3.1) years and median 568 followers (25th, 75th: 195, 1146). They had a median 34.5 peer-reviewed articles (25th, 75th: 14, 105), 401 citations (25th, 75th: 102, 1677), and h-index 9 (25th, 75th: 4, 19.8). The median K-index was 0.4 (25th, 75th: 0.15, 1.0), ranging from 0.0008 to 29.2. The median number of electrophysiology procedures was 77 (25th, 75th: 0, 160) and evaluation and management visits 264 (25th, 75th: 59, 516) in 2017. The top 1% electrophysiologists for followers accounted for 20% of all followers, 17% of status updates, had a mean h-index of 6 (versus 15 for others, P=0.3), and accounted for 1% of procedural and evaluation and management volumes. They had a mean K-index of 21 (versus 0.77 for others, P<0.0001) and clinical obs/exp follower ratio of 17.9 and 18.1 for procedures and evaluation and management (P<0.001 each, versus others [0.81 for each]). CONCLUSIONS: Electrophysiologists are active on Twitter, with modest influence often representative of scholarly and clinical activity. However, the most influential physicians appear to have relatively modest scholarly and clinical activity.

Medical Degree Disparity Among Authors in Obstetrics and Gynecology Journals.

CONTEXT: With the transition to a single accreditation system for graduate medical education, the scholarly activity among core faculty in osteopathic and allopathic residency programs has come under scrutiny. Currently, major differences in scholarly activity requirements exist between core faculty in obstetrics and gynecology residencies accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and those accredited by the American Osteopathic Association. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is a disparity between osteopathic and allopathic physicians among authors with original research published in 4 high-impact obstetrics and gynecology journals during 4 select years. METHODS: The authors reviewed Obstetrics & Gynecology (Obstet Gynecol), the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Am J Obstet Gynecol), Fertility and Sterility (Fertil Steril), and Menopause for the degree designation of the first and senior (last) author of each original manuscript for the years of 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015. Data were analyzed using simple descriptive statistics and linear regression. RESULTS: In total, 3311 articles and 5909 authors were reviewed. Of these authors, 0.80% (47) had a DO degree. Of 1692 authors with dual advanced degrees, only 0.53% (9) had a DO degree. On subgroup analysis of each journal, 0.87% (13 of 1494) of identified authors in Obstet Gynecol, 1.03% (21 of 2038) in Am J Obstet Gynecol, 0.44% (9 of 2030) in Fertil Steril, and 2.20% (4 of 347) in Menopause were osteopathic physicians. During the years studied, no statistically significant trend could be established for first or senior author publication by osteopathic physicians over time, for all 4 journals or for any individual journal. CONCLUSION: Very few osteopathic physicians have served as either the first or the senior author in articles published in Obstet Gynecol, Am J Obstet Gynecol, Fertil Steril, or Menopause during the years studied, and no trend was seen for increased publication by osteopathic physicians in these journals over time.

Evidence Underlying Recommendations and Payments from Industry to Authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines are among the most widely used guidance in oncology. It is critical to understand the extent to which the recommendations in these guidelines are supported by evidence and to investigate whether these recommendations have been influenced by payments from industry to authors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined the quality and consistency of evidence, as scored by guidelines authors, for systemic treatment incorporated in the NCCN guidelines. Payments data in 2015 were manually abstracted using the Open Payments database, which discloses all payments between the industry and American physicians. Correlations between the percentage of authors who received payments and the proportion of recommendations developed from low-level evidence per guideline were calculated using Spearman rank correlation. RESULTS: In total, 1,782 recommendations were identified in 29 guidelines, of which 1,282 (71.9%) were based on low-quality or low-consistency evidence (low-level evidence), including "case reports or clinical experience only" (18.9%). A substantial proportion (31/143, 21.7%) of category 1 (the highest level) recommendations were based on low-level evidence. The majority of authors (87.1%) received payments from industry. However, no association was found between the prevalence of payments among authors and the percentage of recommendations developed from low-level evidence per guideline. CONCLUSION: The majority of systemic treatment recommendations in the NCCN guidelines are based on low-level evidence, including more than one in five category 1 recommendations. Payments from industry were prevalent among authors. However, industrial payments among authors were not associated with inclusion of regimen/agent for which there is no conclusive evidence in the guidelines. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The authors found that the majority (71.9%) of systemic treatment recommendations issued in the current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines were based on low-level evidence. Physicians should remain cautious when using current guidelines as the sole source guiding patient care decisions.

The scientific authorship of Doctor Chernoviz, from the popularization of medicine to professional training: the Dicionário de medicina popular, 1842-1890. / Autoria científica do doutor Chernoviz entre a vulgarização da medicina e a formação profissional: o caso do Dicionário de medicina popular, 1842-1890.

This article reflects on the scientific authorship of Pedro Luiz Napoleão Chernoviz, based on his Dicionário de medicina popular, which was published in six editions between 1842 and 1890. The first part of the text discusses Chernoviz's position within the regimes of scientific authorship which were present in the medical community in Rio de Janeiro. Next, we analyze the author's arguments justifying a text that popularized medical science while this field strove for exclusivity in the practice of medicine. Finally, we suggest new meanings around Chernoviz's scientific authorship based on how the Dicionário was used and read by an initiated public.

Autoria científica do doutor Chernoviz entre a vulgarização da medicina e a formação profissional: o caso do Dicionário de medicina popular, 1842-1890 / The scientific authorship of Doctor Chernoviz, from the popularization of medicine to professional training: the Dicionário de medicina popular, 1842-1890

Resumo O artigo traz reflexões em torno da autoria científica do doutor Chernoviz a partir de seu Dicionário de medicina popular, com seis edições entre 1842 e 1890. Na primeira seção do texto discute-se a inserção de Chernoviz nos regimes de autoria científica vigentes no campo médico carioca. Em seguida, analisam-se os argumentos desenvolvidos pelo autor para justificar a publicação de um livro de vulgarização da ciência médica num momento em que o campo médico militava pela exclusividade do exercício da medicina. Por fim, sugerem-se novos sentidos em torno da autoria científica de Chernoviz a partir das constatações dos usos e das leituras do Dicionário por parte de um público de iniciados.

Abstract This article reflects on the scientific authorship of Pedro Luiz Napoleão Chernoviz, based on his Dicionário de medicina popular, which was published in six editions between 1842 and 1890. The first part of the text discusses Chernoviz's position within the regimes of scientific authorship which were present in the medical community in Rio de Janeiro. Next, we analyze the author's arguments justifying a text that popularized medical science while this field strove for exclusivity in the practice of medicine. Finally, we suggest new meanings around Chernoviz's scientific authorship based on how the Dicionário was used and read by an initiated public.

Undisclosed conflicts of interest among biomedical textbook authors.

BACKGROUND: Textbooks are a formative resource for health care providers during their education and are also an enduring reference for pathophysiology and treatment. Unlike the primary literature and clinical guidelines, biomedical textbook authors do not typically disclose potential financial conflicts of interest (pCoIs). The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the authors of textbooks used in the training of physicians, pharmacists, and dentists had appreciable undisclosed pCoIs in the form of patents or compensation received from pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies. METHODS: The most recent editions of six medical textbooks, Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine (HarPIM), Katzung and Trevor's Basic and Clinical Pharmacology (KatBCP), the American Osteopathic Association's Foundations of Osteopathic Medicine (AOAFOM), Remington: The Science and Practice of Pharmacy (RemSPP), Koda-Kimble and Young's Applied Therapeutics (KKYAT), and Yagiela's Pharmacology and Therapeutics for Dentistry (YagPTD), were selected after consulting biomedical educators for evaluation. Author names (N = 1,152, 29.2% female) were submitted to databases to examine patents (Google Scholar) and compensation (ProPublica's Dollars for Docs [PDD]). RESULTS: Authors were listed as inventors on 677 patents (maximum/author = 23), with three-quarters (74.9%) to HarPIM authors. Females were significantly underrepresented among patent holders. The PDD 2009-2013 database revealed receipt of US$13.2 million, the majority to (83.9%) to HarPIM. The maximum compensation per author was $869,413. The PDD 2014 database identified receipt of $6.8 million, with 50.4% of eligible authors receiving compensation. The maximum compensation received by a single author was $560,021. Cardiovascular authors were most likely to have a PDD entry and neurologic disorders authors were least likely. CONCLUSION: An appreciable subset of biomedical authors have patents and have received remuneration from medical product companies and this information is not disclosed to readers. These findings indicate that full transparency of financial pCoI should become a standard practice among the authors of biomedical educational materials.