Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization Mapping of Anthrax Vaccine Publications from 1991 through 2021
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose: This study aims to analyze and characterize anthrax vaccine-related research, key developments, global research trends, and mapping of published scientific research articles during the last three decades (1991–2021). Methods: A bibliometric and visualized study was conducted. The Web of Science Core Collection database (WoSCC) was searched using relevant keywords (“Anthrax” OR “Anthrax bacterium” OR “Bacillus anthracis” OR “Bacteridium anthracis” OR “Bacillus cereus var. Anthracis” (Topic)) AND (“Vaccine” OR “Vaccines” OR “Immunization” OR “Immunisation” OR “Immunizations” OR “Immunisations” (Topic)) with specific restrictions. The data was analyzed and plotted by using different bibliometric software and tools (HistCiteTM software, version 12.3.17, Bibliometrix: An R-tool version 3.2.1, and VOSviewer software, version 1.6.17). Results: The initial search yielded 1750 documents. After screening the titles and abstracts of the published studies, a total of 1090 articles published from 1991 to 2021 were included in the final analysis. These articles were published in 334 journals and were authored by 4567 authors from 64 countries with a collaboration index of 4.32. The annual scientific production growth rate was found to be 9.68%. The analyzed articles were cited 31335 times. The most productive year was 2006 (n = 77, 7.06%), while the most cited year was 2007 (2561 citations). The leading authors and journals in anthrax research were Rakesh Bhatnagar from Jawaharlal Nehru University, India (n = 35, 3.21%), and Vaccine (n = 1830, 16.51%), while the most cited author and journal were Arthur M. Friedlander from the United States Department of Defense (n = 2762), and Vaccine (n = 5696), respectively. The most studied recent research trend topics were lethal, double-blind, epidemiology, B surface antigen, disease, and toxin. The United States of America (USA) was the most dominant country in terms of publications, citations, corresponding author country, and global collaboration in anthrax vaccine research. The USA had the strongest collaboration with the United Kingdom (UK), China, Canada, Germany, and France. Conclusion: This is the first bibliometric study that provides a comprehensive historical overview of scientific studies. From 2006 to 2008, more than 20% of the total articles were published; however, a decrease was observed since 2013 in anthrax vaccine research. The developed countries made significant contributions to anthrax vaccine-related research, especially the USA. Among the top 10 leading authors, six authors are from the USA. The majority of the top leading institutions are also from the USA. About 90% of the total studies were funded by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), USA, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), USA.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,047 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».