MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200317969 · doi:10.3389/fped.2021.633525

Global Trends and Future Prospects of Child Nutrition: A Bibliometric Analysis of Highly Cited Papers

2021· review· en· W3200317969 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yunhua Wang, Qiaorong Liu, Yongcong Chen, Ya-ling Qian, Bei Pan, Long Ge, Qi Wang, Guowu Ding, Jiancheng Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pediatrics · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCitationScience Citation IndexOverweightBibliometricsChildhood obesityObesityEnvironmental healthMedical educationPediatricsLibrary sciencePathologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Child nutrition has always been a global concern. This study performed visual analysis of 1,398 child nutrition highly cited papers (HCPs) from 2009 to 2019. The purpose of the study was to evaluate and present the performances of authors, journals, countries, institutions, top cited papers; to explore the hot topics, prospects, and to propose the future research directions on child nutrition. We used bibliometric methods to conduct in-depth statistical analysis of HCPs on child nutrition, showing research progress, trends and hot spots. We included HCPs on child nutrition from the Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-E) database February 7, 2020. Two tools, CiteSpace and VOSviewer, were used to conduct the bibliometric analyses. The results showed that, since 2011, the number of HCPs on child nutrition has increased rapidly. The top three contributors in this field were the USA, the UK and Canada. However, the contribution of developing countries was very limited. Intestinal microflora, food allergy, overweight and obesity were the three major research hotspots in this field. Results of this study provide valuable references for ongoing child nutrition related research, which may be interesting and noteworthy to the researchers involved.

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 armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0980.120
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Bibliometrics

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Systematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PediatricsSame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207