MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995035149 · doi:10.3390/medicina55120785

Nanomedicine: Insights from a Bibliometrics-Based Analysis of Emerging Publishing and Research Trends

2019· review· en· W2995035149 on OpenAlexaff
Nicola Luigi Bragazzi

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicina · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNanomedicineBibliometricsMEDLINEMedicineNanotechnologyData scienceMedical physicsComputer scienceLibrary sciencePolitical scienceMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Objectives: Nanomedicine, a term coined by the American engineer Eric Drexler (1955) and Robert Freitas Jr. (1952) in the nineties, can be defined as a complex, multi-disciplinary branch of medicine, in which nano-technologies, molecular biotechnologies, and other nano-sciences are applied at every step of disease management, from diagnosis (nano-diagnostics) to treatment (nano-therapeutics), prognosis, and monitoring of biological parameters and biomarkers. Nanomedicine is a relatively young discipline, which is increasingly and exponentially growing, characterized by emerging ethical issues and implications. Nanomedicine has branched out in hundreds of different sub-fields. Materials and Methods: A bibliometrics-based analysis was applied mining the entire content of PubMed/MEDLINE, using “nanomedicine” as a Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) search term. Results: A sample of 6696 articles were extracted from PubMed/MEDLINE and analyzed. Articles had been published in the period from 2003 to 2019, showing an increasing trend throughout the time. Six thematic clusters emerged (first cluster: molecular methods; second cluster: molecular biology and nano-characterization; third cluster: nano-diagnostics and nano-theranostics; fourth cluster: clinical applications, in the sub-fields of nano-oncology, nano-immunology and nano-vaccinology; fifth cluster: clinical applications, in the sub-fields of nano-oncology and nano-infectiology; and sixth cluster: nanodrugs). The countries with the highest percentages of articles in the field of nanomedicine were the North America (38.3%) and Europe (35.1%). Conclusions: The present study showed that there is an increasing trend in publishing and performing research in the super-specialty of nanomedicine. Most productive countries were the USA and European countries, with China as an emerging region. Hot topics in the last years were nano-diagnostics and nano-theranostics and clinical applications in the sub-fields of nano-oncology and nano-infectiology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.1670.257
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.535
GPT teacher head0.582
Teacher spread0.047 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreReview

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

Citations33
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicinaSame topicHealth and Medical Research ImpactsFrench-language works237,207