Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research Trends on Ultrasound Microbubble: A Quickly Developing Field
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Microbubbles are widely used as highly effective contrast agents to improve the diagnostic capability of ultrasound imaging. Mounting evidence suggests that ultrasound coupled with microbubbles has promising therapeutic applications in cancer, cardiovascular, and neurological disorders by acting as gene or drug carriers. The aim of this study was to identify the scientific output and activity related to ultrasound microbubble through bibliometric approaches. Methods: The literature related to ultrasound microbubble published between 1998 and 2019 was identified and selected from the Science Citation Index Expanded of Web of Science Core Collection on February 21, 2021. The Scopus database was also searched to validate the results and provided as supplementary material. Quantitative variables including number of publications and citations, H-index, and journal citation reports were analyzed by using Microsoft Excel 2019 and GraphPad Prism 8.0 software. VOS viewer and CiteSpace V were used to perform coauthorship, citation, co-citation, and co-occurrence analysis for countries/regions, institutions, authors, and keywords. Results: A total of 6088 publications from the WoSCC were included. The United States has made the largest contribution in this field, with the majority of publications (2090, 34.3%), citations (90,741, 46.6%), the highest H-index (138), and close collaborations with China and Canada. The most contributive institution was the University of Toronto. Professors De Jong N and Dayton P A have made great achievements in this field. However, the research cooperation between institutions and authors was relatively weak. All the studies could be divided into four clusters: “ultrasound diagnosis study,” “microbubbles’ characteristics study,” “gene therapy study,” and “drug delivery study.” The average appearing years (AAY) of keywords in the cluster “drug delivery study” was more recent than other clusters. For promising hot spots, “doxorubicin” showed a relatively latest AAY of 2015.49, followed by “nanoparticles” and “breast cancer.” Conclusion: There has been an increasing amount of scientific output on ultrasound microbubble according to the global trends, and the United States is staying ahead in this field. Collaboration between research teams still needs to be strengthened. The focus gradually shifts from “ultrasound diagnosis study” to “drug delivery study.” It is recommended to pay attention to the latest hot spots, such as “doxorubicin,” “nanoparticles,” and “breast cancer.”
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.
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: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.201 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it