Blood & Stardom: Unraveling the Kardashian Index of Hematologists/ Oncologists
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63501/3xcn1y49Keywords:
Kardashian Index, h-index, social media, hematology, oncology, academic impact, Twitter/XAbstract
Background: Social media has transformed professional communication, including in medicine. The Kardashian Index (K-index) measures the disparity between a researcher’s social media following and their academic citations, serving as a proxy for online influence versus scholarly impact. This study evaluates the K-index among hematologists/oncologists in the U.S. to assess their social media presence and its correlation with academic productivity.
Methods: We analyzed 1,500 hematologists/oncologists from the top 100 U.S. cancer hospitals (per U.S. News & World Report). Only 273 (18.2%) had a detectable presence on X (formerly Twitter). The K-index was calculated using Neil Hall’s formula (K-index = F(a)/F, where F(a) = actual followers, F = expected followers based on citations). The h-index was used to gauge academic productivity.
Results: Most hematologists/oncologists (n = 175) had a low K-index (0–2), indicating minimal social media influence. Only 30 had a K-index >5 ("Science Kardashians"). No significant gender differences in K-index were observed (p = 0.138). Subspecialty variation existed, with pediatric hematologists/oncologists more active. Spearman’s test revealed no correlation between K-index and h-index (ρ = -0.068, p = 0.277), suggesting social media fame does not directly enhance academic impact.
Conclusion: While a minority of hematologists/oncologists achieve high online visibility, most maintain low social media engagement without compromising academic success. The K-index, though intriguing, lacks validity as a measure of scientific merit. Social media’s role in disseminating research remains evolving, with tweets and citations capturing distinct dimensions of influence. Future studies should explore longitudinal trends as digital engagement grows in academia.
References
1.Cialdini RB, Demaine LJ, Sagarin BJ, Barrett DW, Rhoads K, Winter PL. Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Soc Influ. 2006;1(1):3–15. doi:10.1080/15534510500181459. [Google Scholar]
2. Social networking fact sheet.Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/social-networking-fact-sheet/ Accessed August 13, 2015.
3. Thompson MA, Majhail NS, Wood WA, Perales MA, Chaboissier M. Social Media and the Practicing Hematologist: Twitter 101 for the Busy Healthcare Provider. Curr Hematol Malig Rep. 2015 Dec;10(4):405-12.
4. Choo EK, Ranney ML, Chan TM, Trueger NS, Walsh AE, Tegtmeyer K et al. Twitter as a tool for communication and knowledge exchange in academic medicine: A guide for skeptics and novices. Medical Teacher. 2015;37(5):411-6. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2014.993371
5. Adilman R, Rajmohan Y, Brooks E, Urgoiti, G, Chung C, Hammad N, Simmons C. ReCAP: Social Media Use Among Physicians and Trainees: Results of a National Medical Oncology Physician Survey. Journal of Oncology Practice, 12(1), 79-80. 2016.
6. Company @ About.Twitter.Com. https://about.twitter.com/company.
7. Xu S, Markson C, Costello K, Xing C, Demissie K, Llanos A. Leveraging Social Media to Promote Public Health Knowledge: Example of Cancer Awareness via Twitter. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, 2(1). doi:10.2196/publichealth.5205. 2016.
8. Sinnenberg, L., DiSilvestro, C. L., Mancheno, C., Dailey, K., Tufts, C., Buttenheim, A. M., ... & Merchant, R. M. (2016). Twitter as a potential data source for cardiovascular disease research. JAMA cardiology, 1(9), 1032-1036.
9. Pemmaraju N, Thompson MA, Mesa RA, Desai T. Analysis of the use and impact of Twitter during the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meetings From 2011 to 2016: Focus on advanced metrics and user trends. J Oncol Pract. 2017 Jul;13(7):e623-e631. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2017.021634. Epub 2017 May 17.
10. Ibrahim AM, Lillemoe KD, Klingensmith ME, Dimick JB. Visual abstracts to disseminate research on social media: A prospective, case-control crossover study. Ann Surg. 2017 Apr 26 doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002277. [Epub ahead of print].
11. Fox C.S., Bonaca M.A., Ryan J.J., Massaro J.M., Barry K., Loscalzo J. A randomized trial of social media from Circulation. Circulation. 2015;131:28–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Han, J., & Ziaeian, B. (2019). Social media usage, impact factor, and mean altmetric attention scores: characteristics and correlates in major cardiology journals. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 73(9S1), 3027-3027.
13. Eysenbach, G. (2011). Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of medical Internet research, 13(4), e2012.
14. Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M., Kwasny, M., & Holmes, K. L. (2018). Academic information on Twitter: A user survey. PloS one, 13(5), e0197265.
15. Hall, N. (2014). The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists. Genome biology, 15(7), 1-3.
16. Khan, M. S., Shahadat, A., Khan, S. U., Ahmed, S., Doukky, R., Michos, E. D., & Kalra, A. (2020). The Kardashian index of cardiologists: celebrities or experts?. Case Reports, 2(2), 330-332.
17. Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(46):16569–16572. doi:10.1073/pnas.0507655102. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
18. Lando, T., & Bertoli-Barsotti, L. (2014). A new bibliometric index based on the shape of the citation distribution. PLoS One, 9(12), e115962.
19. Bornmann L, Wallon G, Ledin A. Is the h index related to (standard) bibliometric measures and to the assessments by peers? An investigation of the h index by using molecular life sciences data. Res Evaluation 2008; 17: 149-56
20. Agarwal A, Durairajanayagam D, Tatagari S, et al. Bibliometrics: Tracking research impact by selecting the appropriate metrics. Asian J Androl 2016; 18: 296-309
21. Jones T, Huggett S, Kamalski J. Finding a way through the scientific literature: Indexes and measures. World Neurosurg 2011; 76: 36-8
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided appropriate credit is given to the author(s) and the source. To view a copy of this license, visit: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0