The Development History and Research Tendency of Medical Informatics: Topic Evolution Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medical informatics has attracted the attention of researchers worldwide. It is necessary to understand the development of its research hot spots as well as directions for future research. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to explore the evolution of medical informatics research topics by analyzing research articles published between 1964 and 2020. METHODS: A total of 56,466 publications were collected from 27 representative medical informatics journals indexed by the Web of Science Core Collection. We identified the research stages based on the literature growth curve, extracted research topics using the latent Dirichlet allocation model, and analyzed topic evolution patterns by calculating the cosine similarity between topics from the adjacent stages. RESULTS: The following three research stages were identified: early birth, early development, and rapid development. Medical informatics has entered the fast development stage, with literature growing exponentially. Research topics in medical informatics can be classified into the following two categories: data-centered studies and people-centered studies. Medical data analysis has been a research hot spot across all 3 stages, and the integration of emerging technologies into data analysis might be a future hot spot. Researchers have focused more on user needs in the last 2 stages. Another potential hot spot might be how to meet user needs and improve the usability of health tools. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides a comprehensive understanding of research hot spots in medical informatics, as well as evolution patterns among them, which was helpful for researchers to grasp research trends and design their studies.
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 | 0.013 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.035 | 0.036 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".