Pediatric type 1 diabetes research in the 21st century: a scientometric review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Scientometric studies help scientists to identify research gaps and plan future research. There is no scientometric assessment of research on childhood onset type 1 diabetes (T1D), despite an intensive research in this field over the past 2 decades. AIM OF THE STUDY: To provide a scientometric assessment of global research output in pediatric T1D. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Publications on pediatric T1D indexed in Scopus database over the 20-year period from 2000 to 2019 were examined. The most productive and impactful countries, organizations and authors, trends in research, the media of publications and characteristics of high cited publications were identified using appropriate bibliographic tools. RESULTS: Pediatric T1D research registered 7.84% and 79.99% annual and 10-year cumulative growth and averaged 19.35 citations per paper (CPP). The field witnessed an uneven participation of 141 countries, wherein 82.67% of the global research output share came from top 10 countries. USA leads the ranking with 29.76% share, followed by UK (10.56%), Germany, Italy, Sweden and Australia (5.15% to 7.88%), and Poland, Finland, Canada and Denmark (3.04% to 4.24%). Five countries which registered relative citation index (RCI) higher than their group average of 1.63 were Finland (2.30), UK (1.82), Canada (1.77), Denmark and USA (1.74 each). The number of participating organizations and authors was 3627 and 5596 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The USA and Finland are the most productive and the most impactful countries respectively in global pediatric T1D research. The contribution from developing countries especially from Southeast Asia is meager despite a large disease burden.
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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
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 | 0.049 | 0.154 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.111 | 0.181 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".