MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970107663 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000016817

Bibliometric analysis of oncolytic virus research, 2000 to 2018

2019· article· en· W2970107663 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yidi Zou, Yong Luo, Jun Zhang, Ningshao Xia, Guowei Tan, Chenghao Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicVirus-based gene therapy research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science and Technology Major ProjectNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsOncolytic virusMedicineLibrary scienceVariety (cybernetics)BibliometricsCitationVirusVirologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence in the last decade has pointed to the effectiveness of oncolytic virus in the treatment of a variety of cancer types in preclinical or clinical studies, showing high potency and low toxicity compared to conventional treatments. To track this research trend and highlight future directions, we conducted a bibliometric analysis of oncolytic virus research to date. METHODS: Relevant studies were obtained from the Web of Science Core Collection between January 2000 and December 2018. Data were collected in terms of the number of publications, country, journal of publication, journal scope, author, and keywords or topics. Analysis and visual representation of the data were performed with CiteSpace V. RESULTS: The trend in publications related to oncolytic virus showed a dramatic increase, from 10 publications in 2000 to 199 publications in 2018. The United States clearly dominates this field (981 publications, 52.770%), followed by Canada (244, 13.125%) and China (205, 11.027%). The top 15 academic journals account for over one third of the total publications on oncolytic virus research (724, 38.95%). Most of the related papers were published in journals with a focus on biology, medicine, immunology, medicine, molecular biology, and clinical perspectives, as represented by the dual-map overlay. The most highly cited papers were published in journals in the fields of nursing, molecular biology, general biology, genetics, health, and medicine. Over 1300 institutions have focused their attention on oncolytic virus research to date, and cooperation among mainstream institutions is common. CONCLUSION: The global field of oncolytic virus research has expanded at a rapid pace from 2000 to 2018. There is no doubt that North America currently has the most powerful impact on the field with respect to both productivity and contribution. However, European and some East Asian institutions are also prominent in this field. Overall, this bibliometric study identifies the top 4 hotspots in oncolytic virus research: T-cells, vaccinia virus, dendritic cells, and apoptosis. Thus, further research focuses on these topics may be more helpful to promote the clinical translation of this treatment strategy to bring a benefit to cancer patients in the near future.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0500.125
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.357 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations48
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicVirus-based gene therapy researchFrench-language works237,207