The 100 Top-cited Articles in Main Allergy Journals: A Bibliometric Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to identify the characteristics of the top 100 cited studies in main allergy journals. The 100 top-cited studies in allergy journals from the Web of Science were enrolled. The key characteristics included citation, year, authors, country, institution and journal were analyzed. The number of citations of the 100 top-cited studies ranged from 409 to 2313. They were published between 1972 and 2014. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology published the largest number of top-cited studies (n=74), followed by Allergy (n=13) and Clinical and Experimental Allergy (n=9). The greatest number of studies were USA (n=45), followed by England (n=10), Canada (n=7), and Sweden (n=7). The institution with the largest number of studies was the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in the USA (n=8). The country with the largest number of top institutions was the USA (n=8). The reviews had higher average citation times than articles. Our study can give a historical perspective on the scientific progress of allergy, as well as provide important insights into priorities and trends of allergy and could serve as sources for future studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".