Analysis of the Trends in Publications on Clinical Cancer Research in Mainland China from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Database: Bibliometric Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The application of China's big data sector in cancer research is just the beginning. In recent decades, more and more Chinese scholars have used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database for clinical cancer research. A comprehensive bibliometric study is required to analyze the tendency of Chinese scholars to utilize the SEER database for clinical cancer research and provide a reference for the future of big data analytics. OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to assess the trend of publications on clinical cancer research in mainland China from the SEER database. METHODS: We performed a PubMed search to identify papers published with data from the SEER database in mainland China until August 31, 2020. RESULTS: A total of 1566 papers utilizing the SEER database that were authored by investigators in mainland China were identified. Over the past years, significant growth in studies based on the SEER database was observed (P<.001). The top 5 research topics were breast cancer (213/1566, 13.6%), followed by colorectal cancer (185/1566, 11.8%), lung cancer (179/1566, 11.4%), gastrointestinal cancer (excluding colorectal cancer; 149/1566, 9.5%), and genital system cancer (93/1566, 5.9%). Approximately 75.2% (1178/1566) of papers were published from the eastern coastal region of China, and Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (Shanghai, China) was the most active organization. Overall, 267 journals were analyzed in this study, of which Oncotarget was the most contributing journal (136/267, 50.9%). Of the 1566 papers studied, 585 (37.4%) were published in the second quartile, 489 (31.2%) in the third quartile, 312 (19.9%) in the first quartile, and 80 (5.1%) in the fourth quartile, with 100 (6.4%) having an unknown Journal Citation Reports ranking. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical cancer research based on the SEER database in mainland China underwent constant and rapid growth during recent years. High-quality and comprehensive cancer databases based on Chinese demographic data are urgently needed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.082 | 0.130 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".