MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

[Analysis of research hotspot and frontier of severe coronavirus disease 2019: visual analysis based on CiteSpace].

2020· article· en· W3042417617 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hongyan Chen, Xiaoyi Huang, Fengxiang Wei, Min Li, Liuhong Liu, Ziqing Yang, Siyi Chen, Ken Chen

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)FrontierPublishingTraditional Chinese medicineWeb of scienceDiseaseChinese languageBibliometricsLibrary scienceTraditional medicineFamily medicineAlternative medicineMedical educationInfectious disease (medical specialty)GeographyPathologyMeta-analysisPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the research hotspot and frontier of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China and abroad. METHODS: The CiteSpace software was used to visually analyze the relevant research of severe COVID-19 published by CNKI and Web of Science databases from January 30th to April 20th in 2020. The analysis content included the author of the literature, the publishing institutions, and high-frequency keywords. RESULTS: There were 389 Chinese literatures and 59 English literatures included. Analysis using CiteSpace software showed that there were four large teams in China currently concerning about the research on severe COVID-19. The co-authoring of each team was relatively close, but the teams were lack of cooperation. The main issuing institutions were affiliated hospitals of colleges and universities, but colleges and enterprises had less participation. The authors of English-language publications mainly had five research teams, some of whom had co-authored relationships. The country with the most enormous volume of English-language publications was China, followed by the United States and Canada. The Chinese keyword co-occurrence, clustering and highlighted words analysis showed that the main research areas of severe COVID-19 included clinical features, traditional Chinese medicine treatment, medical imaging, integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine treatment and so on; nucleic acid detection, clinical features and diagnosis, plague theory and etiology mechanism, traditional Chinese medicine and integrated Chinese and Western medicine treatment, severe COVID-19 combined with diabetes and prognosis research will become future research trends; keyword cluster analysis showed that severe COVID-19, combined chronic underlying diseases, CT imaging characteristics will also become new trends in the field of research. Co-occurrence analysis of keywords in English literatures showed that the main research areas of severe COVID-19 included the names of novel coronavirus, pandemic diseases, infectious diseases, medical supplies distribution, and indicators related to myocardial damage. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers in China and abroad have different concerns about severe COVID-19. Domestic research focuses on the diagnosis and treatment of severe cases, while foreign countries attach importance to epidemic response and prevention.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0880.076
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 designObservational
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies→French-language works237,207→