Understanding the temporal evolution of COVID-19 research through machine learning and natural language processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been continuously affecting human lives and communities around the world in many ways, from cities under lockdown to new social experiences. Although in most cases COVID-19 results in mild illness, it has drawn global attention due to the extremely contagious nature of SARS-CoV-2. Governments and healthcare professionals, along with people and society as a whole, have taken any measures to break the chain of transition and flatten the epidemic curve. In this study, we used multiple data sources, i.e., PubMed and ArXiv, and built several machine learning models to characterize the landscape of current COVID-19 research by identifying the latent topics and analyzing the temporal evolution of the extracted research themes, publications similarity, and sentiments, within the time-frame of January-May 2020. Our findings confirm the types of research available in PubMed and ArXiv differ significantly, with the former exhibiting greater diversity in terms of COVID-19 related issues and the latter focusing more on intelligent systems/tools to predict/diagnose COVID-19. The special attention of the research community to the high-risk groups and people with complications was also confirmed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".