Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization Mapping of Anthrax Vaccine Publications from 1991 through 2021
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to analyze and characterize anthrax vaccine-related research, key developments, global research trends, and mapping of published scientific research articles during the last three decades (1991–2021). Methods: A bibliometric and visualized study was conducted. The Web of Science Core Collection database (WoSCC) was searched using relevant keywords (“Anthrax” OR “Anthrax bacterium” OR “Bacillus anthracis” OR “Bacteridium anthracis” OR “Bacillus cereus var. Anthracis” (Topic)) AND (“Vaccine” OR “Vaccines” OR “Immunization” OR “Immunisation” OR “Immunizations” OR “Immunisations” (Topic)) with specific restrictions. The data was analyzed and plotted by using different bibliometric software and tools (HistCiteTM software, version 12.3.17, Bibliometrix: An R-tool version 3.2.1, and VOSviewer software, version 1.6.17). Results: The initial search yielded 1750 documents. After screening the titles and abstracts of the published studies, a total of 1090 articles published from 1991 to 2021 were included in the final analysis. These articles were published in 334 journals and were authored by 4567 authors from 64 countries with a collaboration index of 4.32. The annual scientific production growth rate was found to be 9.68%. The analyzed articles were cited 31335 times. The most productive year was 2006 (n = 77, 7.06%), while the most cited year was 2007 (2561 citations). The leading authors and journals in anthrax research were Rakesh Bhatnagar from Jawaharlal Nehru University, India (n = 35, 3.21%), and Vaccine (n = 1830, 16.51%), while the most cited author and journal were Arthur M. Friedlander from the United States Department of Defense (n = 2762), and Vaccine (n = 5696), respectively. The most studied recent research trend topics were lethal, double-blind, epidemiology, B surface antigen, disease, and toxin. The United States of America (USA) was the most dominant country in terms of publications, citations, corresponding author country, and global collaboration in anthrax vaccine research. The USA had the strongest collaboration with the United Kingdom (UK), China, Canada, Germany, and France. Conclusion: This is the first bibliometric study that provides a comprehensive historical overview of scientific studies. From 2006 to 2008, more than 20% of the total articles were published; however, a decrease was observed since 2013 in anthrax vaccine research. The developed countries made significant contributions to anthrax vaccine-related research, especially the USA. Among the top 10 leading authors, six authors are from the USA. The majority of the top leading institutions are also from the USA. About 90% of the total studies were funded by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), USA, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), USA.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.109 | 0.139 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".