A Review and Framework for Categorizing Current Research and Development in Health Related Geographical Information Systems (GIS) Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The application of GIS in health science has increased over the last decade and new innovative application areas have emerged. This study reviews the literature and builds a framework to provide a conceptual overview of the domain, and to promote strategic planning for further research of GIS in health. METHOD: The framework is based on literature from the library databases Scopus and Web of Science. The articles were identified based on keywords and initially selected for further study based on titles and abstracts. A grounded theory-inspired method was applied to categorize the selected articles in main focus areas. Subsequent frequency analysis was performed on the identified articles in areas of infectious and non-infectious diseases and continent of origin. RESULTS: A total of 865 articles were included. Four conceptual domains within GIS in health sciences comprise the framework: spatial analysis of disease, spatial analysis of health service planning, public health, health technologies and tools. Frequency analysis by disease status and location show that malaria and schistosomiasis are the most commonly analyzed infectious diseases where cancer and asthma are the most frequently analyzed non-infectious diseases. Across categories, articles from North America predominate, and in the category of spatial analysis of diseases an equal number of studies concern Asia. CONCLUSION: Spatial analysis of diseases and health service planning are well-established research areas. The development of future technologies and new application areas for GIS and data-gathering technologies such as GPS, smartphones, remote sensing etc. will be nudging the research in GIS and health.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.057 | 0.052 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".