Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) refers to the simulation of human intelligence in machines, using machine learning, deep learning and neural networks. AI enables machines to learn from experience and perform human-like tasks. The field of AI research has been developing fast over the past five to ten years, due to the rise of ‘big data’ and increasing computing power. In the medical area, AI can be used to improve diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, surgery, drug discovery, or for other applications. Therefore, both academia and industry are investing a lot in AI. This review investigates the biomedical literature (in the PubMed and Embase databases) by looking at bibliographical data, observing trends over time and occurrences of keywords. Some observations are made: AI has been growing exponentially over the past few years; it is used mostly for diagnosis; COVID-19 is already in the top-5 of diseases studied using AI; the United States, China, United Kingdom, South Korea and Canada are publishing the most articles in AI research; MIT is the world’s leading university in AI research; and convolutional neural networks are by far the most popular deep learning algorithms at this moment. These trends could be studied in more detail, by studying more literature databases or by including patent databases. More advanced analyses could be used to predict in which direction AI will develop over the coming years. The expectation is that AI will keep on growing, in spite of stricter privacy laws, more need for standardization, bias in the data, and the need for building trust.
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 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.052 | 0.070 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.004 |
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".