Modeling the Research Landscapes of Artificial Intelligence Applications in Diabetes (GAPRESEARCH)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rising prevalence and global burden of diabetes fortify the need for more comprehensive and effective management to prevent, monitor, and treat diabetes and its complications. Applying artificial intelligence in complimenting the diagnosis, management, and prediction of the diabetes trajectory has been increasingly common over the years. This study aims to illustrate an inclusive landscape of application of artificial intelligence in diabetes through a bibliographic analysis and offers future direction for research. Bibliometrics analysis was combined with exploratory factor analysis and latent Dirichlet allocation to uncover emergent research domains and topics related to artificial intelligence and diabetes. Data were extracted from the Web of Science Core Collection database. The results showed a rising trend in the number of papers and citations concerning AI applications in diabetes, especially since 2010. The nucleus driving the research and development of AI in diabetes is centered around developed countries, mainly consisting of the United States, which contributed 44.1% of the publications. Our analyses uncovered the top five emerging research domains to be: (i) use of artificial intelligence in diagnosis of diabetes, (ii) risk assessment of diabetes and its complications, (iii) role of artificial intelligence in novel treatments and monitoring in diabetes, (iv) application of telehealth and wearable technology in the daily management of diabetes, and (v) robotic surgical outcomes with diabetes as a comorbid. Despite the benefits of artificial intelligence, challenges with system accuracy, validity, and confidentiality breach will need to be tackled before being widely applied for patients' benefits.
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 | 0.019 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".