Global Research on Syndromic Surveillance from 1993 to 2017: Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Syndromic Surveillance aims at analyzing medical data to detect clusters of illness or forecast disease outbreaks. Although the research in this field is flourishing in terms of publications, an insight of the global research output has been overlooked. This paper aims at analyzing the global scientific output of the research from 1993 to 2017. To this end, the paper uses bibliometric analysis and visualization to achieve its goal. Particularly, a data processing framework was proposed based on citation datasets collected from Scopus and Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC). The bibliometric method and Citespace were used to analyze the institutions, countries, and research areas as well as the current hotspots and trends. The preprocessed dataset includes 14,680 citation records. The analysis uncovered USA, England, Canada, France and Australia as the top five most productive countries publishing about Syndromic Surveillance. On the other hand, at the Pinnacle of academic institutions are the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The reference co-citation analysis uncovered the common research venues and further analysis of the keyword cooccurrence revealed the most trending topics. The findings of this research will help in enriching the field with a comprehensive view of the status and future trends of the research on Syndromic Surveillance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.096 | 0.130 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".