MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285386244 · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2022.936009

Top 100 Cited Papers on Premenstrual Syndrome/Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder: A Bibliometric Study

2022· review· en· W4285386244 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mingzhou Gao, Hao Zhang, Changlin Wang, Xiangyu Mou, Qingjun Zhu, Jieqiong Wang, Dongmei Gao

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychiatry · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenstrual Health and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Shandong ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaShandong University
KeywordsPremenstrual dysphoric disorderPsychiatryEpidemiologyObstetrics and gynaecologyMedicineAlternative medicineWeb of scienceMental healthFamily medicineMeta-analysisMenstrual cyclePregnancyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Premenstrual syndrome/premenstrual dysphoric disorder is a serious condition affecting women worldwide, causing clinically significant distress or interference. Therefore, solving these diseases has become the utmost concern worldwide, culminating in numerous studies. In this study, we performed bibliometric analysis on the 100 most cited papers with the aim of identifying research hot spots and trends in this field. Methods: We screened the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) of Web of Science (WOS) to identify the top 100 cited studies on PMS/PMDD. Next, we analyzed relevant literature from various journals, countries/regions, institutions, authors, and keywords. Finally, we used VOSviewer and Citespace software to generate knowledge maps and identify hot spots and trends. Results: The top 100 highly cited studies were published in 55 journals, between 1999 and 2017, across 24 countries/regions around the world. Most articles were published in Obstetrics and Gynecology, whereas Psych neuroendocrinology had the largest average number of citations per paper. The United States had the highest number of publications, followed by England, Canada, and Sweden. The top three institutions that published the highly cited literature were the University of Pennsylvania, Yale University, and National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). Obstetrics, Gynecology, Psychiatry, and Reproductive Biology were the main research directions, whereas the top 10 Co-occurrence of Keywords included double-blind, fluoxetine, efficacy, prevalence, epidemiology, phase sertraline treatment, depression, progesterone, placebo, and placebo-controlled trial. Results from cluster analysis indicated that more comprehensive epidemiology and steroid pathogenesis have gradually become the hot spots and trends. Conclusion: These findings demonstrated that bibliometric analysis can intuitively and rapidly reveal the frontiers and hot spots of research in PMS/PMDD. Notably, epidemiology, steroid pathogenesis, GABAA receptor delta subunits, and double-blind placebo-controlled trials are potential areas of focus for future research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0550.077
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychiatrySame topicMenstrual Health and DisordersFrench-language works237,207