A bibliometrics analysis and visualization of autism spectrum disorder
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) increased rapidly in the last 20 years. Although related research has developed rapidly, little is known about its etiology, diagnostic marker, or drug treatment, which forces researchers to review and summarize its development process and look for the future development direction. Methods: We used bibliometrics to analyze papers of ASD in the Web of Science from 1998 to 2021, to draw the network of authors, institutions, countries, and keywords in the ASD field, and visualize the results. Results: A total of 40,597 papers were included with a continually increasing trend. It turns out that the research on ASD is mainly concentrated in universities. The United States has the largest number of ASD studies, followed by England and Canada. The quality of papers related to ASD is generally high, which shows that ASD research has become a hot spot of scientific research. The keywords of ASD etiology and diagnostic markers can be classified into at least 7 aspects. The detection of keywords shows that ASD research is mostly based on its subtypes, takes children as the study population, focuses on neurodevelopmental imaging or genetics, and pays attention to individual differences. And ASD research has changed greatly under the impact of Corona Virus Disease 2019 in the past 2 years. Conclusion: We consider the future development direction should be based on the improvement of case identification, accurate clinical phenotype, large-scale cohort study, the discovery of ASD etiology and diagnostic markers, drug randomized controlled trials, and telehealth.
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.
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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.053 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it