Visualizing Knowledge Evolution Trends and Research Hotspots of Personal Health Data Research: Bibliometric Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The recent surge in clinical and nonclinical health-related data has been accompanied by a concomitant increase in personal health data (PHD) research across multiple disciplines such as medicine, computer science, and management. There is now a need to synthesize the dynamic knowledge of PHD in various disciplines to spot potential research hotspots. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to reveal the knowledge evolutionary trends in PHD and detect potential research hotspots using bibliometric analysis. METHODS: We collected 8281 articles published between 2009 and 2018 from the Web of Science database. The knowledge evolution analysis (KEA) framework was used to analyze the evolution of PHD research. The KEA framework is a bibliometric approach that is based on 3 knowledge networks: reference co-citation, keyword co-occurrence, and discipline co-occurrence. RESULTS: The findings show that the focus of PHD research has evolved from medicine centric to technology centric to human centric since 2009. The most active PHD knowledge cluster is developing knowledge resources and allocating scarce resources. The field of computer science, especially the topic of artificial intelligence (AI), has been the focal point of recent empirical studies on PHD. Topics related to psychology and human factors (eg, attitude, satisfaction, education) are also receiving more attention. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis shows that PHD research has the potential to provide value-based health care in the future. All stakeholders should be educated about AI technology to promote value generation through PHD. Moreover, technology developers and health care institutions should consider human factors to facilitate the effective adoption of PHD-related technology. These findings indicate opportunities for interdisciplinary cooperation in several PHD research areas: (1) AI applications for PHD; (2) regulatory issues and governance of PHD; (3) education of all stakeholders about AI technology; and (4) value-based health care including "allocative value," "technology value," and "personalized value."
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 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 | 0.019 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.063 | 0.269 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".