MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W126342708

Cough as a symptom and a disease entity: scientometric analysis and density-equalizing calculations.

2009· article· en· W126342708 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Beatrix Groneberg‐Kloft, Q. Thai Dinh, Cristian Scutaru, Tobias Welte, Axel Fischer, Kian Fan Chung, David Quarcoo

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory and Cough-Related Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWeb of scienceCitationFamily medicineDemographyLibrary sciencePathologyMeta-analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cough is a prominent symptom of many allergic diseases and a major health burden but there is little information available on the current state of research in this area. OBJECTIVES: To analyze long-term developments in cough research and recent trends. METHODS: We searched the Thomson Reuters Web of Science databases for cough-related items published between 1900 and 2007 and analyzed the results using scientometric methods and density-equalizing calculations. RESULTS: We found 12 960 cough-related publications from 132 countries for the period studied. The most productive country was the United States of America (USA), followed by the United Kingdom (UK), France, Japan, Canada, and Germany. These 12 960 published items were cited 165 868 times. The average number of citations per item increased from 1976 to 1992, with peaks in 1977, 1979, 1981, 1984, 1989 and 1992. Each of these years was followed by a decrease in citation numbers. Bilateral and multilateral cooperation analysis using the radar chart technique showed a progressive increase in international co-authorship starting at the beginning of the 1990s, with a leading role by the USA and the UK. CONCLUSION: We detected a marked increased in cough-related research starting in the 1990s. While the majority of data originates from the US, other countries have taken a leading position in terms of research quality (number of citations per item).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicRespiratory and Cough-Related ResearchFrench-language works237,207