Data Mining in Healthcare: Applying Strategic Intelligence Techniques to Depict 25 Years of Research Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to identify the strategic topics and the thematic evolution structure of data mining applied to healthcare, in this paper, a bibliometric performance and network analysis (BPNA) was conducted. For this purpose, 6138 articles were sourced from the Web of Science covering the period from 1995 to July 2020 and the SciMAT software was used. Our results present a strategic diagram composed of 19 themes, of which the 8 motor themes ('NEURAL-NETWORKS', 'CANCER', 'ELETRONIC-HEALTH-RECORDS', 'DIABETES-MELLITUS', 'ALZHEIMER'S-DISEASE', 'BREAST-CANCER', 'DEPRESSION', and 'RANDOM-FOREST') are depicted in a thematic network. An in-depth analysis was carried out in order to find hidden patterns and to provide a general perspective of the field. The thematic network structure is arranged thusly that its subjects are organized into two different areas, (i) practices and techniques related to data mining in healthcare, and (ii) health concepts and disease supported by data mining, embodying, respectively, the hotspots related to the data mining and medical scopes, hence demonstrating the field's evolution over time. Such results make it possible to form the basis for future research and facilitate decision-making by researchers and practitioners, institutions, and governments interested in data mining in healthcare.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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, 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".