Thirty years of research on physical activity, mental health, and wellbeing: A scientometric analysis of hotspots and trends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sheer volume of research publications on physical activity, mental health, and wellbeing is overwhelming. The aim of this study was to perform a broad-ranging scientometric analysis to evaluate key themes and trends over the past decades, informing future lines of research. We searched the Web of Science Core Collection from inception until December 7, 2021, using the appropriate search terms such as “physical activity” or “mental health,” with no limitation of language or time. Eligible studies were articles, reviews, editorial material, and proceeding papers. We retrieved 55,353 documents published between 1905 and 2021. The annual scientific production is exponential with a mean annual growth rate of 6.8% since 1989. The 1988–2021 co-cited reference network identified 50 distinct clusters that presented significant modularity and silhouette scores indicating highly credible clusters (Q = 0.848, S = 0.939). This network identified 6 major research trends on physical activity, namely cardiovascular diseases, somatic disorders, cognitive decline/dementia, mental illness, athletes' performance, related health issues, and eating disorders, and the COVID-19 pandemic. A focus on the latest research trends found that greenness/urbanicity (2014), concussion/chronic traumatic encephalopathy (2015), and COVID-19 (2019) were the most active clusters of research. The USA research network was the most central, and the Chinese research network, although important in size, was relatively isolated. Our results strengthen and expand the central role of physical activity in public health, calling for the systematic involvement of physical activity professionals as stakeholders in public health decision-making process.
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 | 0.030 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.158 | 0.202 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".