MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3076693518 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000021828

A bibliometric analysis of income and cardiovascular disease

2020· review· en· W3076693518 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ye Ding, Dingwan Chen, Xufen Ding, Guan Wang, Yuehua Wan, Qing Shen

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineScience Citation IndexIndex (typography)BibliometricsDiseaseEnvironmental healthPublic healthObesityGerontologyPopulationCitationPathologyLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Income is 1 of the socio-economic indicators and could directly influence the health outcomes of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The relationship between income and CVD has attracted more and more scholars' attention in the past 20 years. METHODS: To study the current research dynamics of this field, a bibliometric analysis was conducted to evaluate the publications from 1990 to 2018 based on the Science Citation Index Expanded database. By using the Derwent Date Analyzer software, the following aspects were explored: RESULTS:: The USA ranked first in this field, followed by UK and Canada in terms of number of publications. As for institutions, Harvard University took the leading place in the number of publications, as well as the h-index. Plos One had the most publications and "health" was the most frequent used keyword. The leading research area was "public environmental occupational health". CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the elderly, the children and the puerpera were the main study population in this field and "disease prevention" was the main study direction. The most concerned health issues in this field were "obesity" and "diet". There might be a lack of articles that explore the associations between income and CVD with a global perspective. Articles on this content are urgently warranted.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.1030.125
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Bibliometrics

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Other design
Domainnot available
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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207