Bibliometric analysis on the adoption of artificial intelligence applications in the e-health sector
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
Artificial Intelligent (AI) applications in e-health have evolved considerably in the last 25 years. To track the current research progress in this field, there is a need to analyze the most recent trend of adopting AI applications in e-health. This bibliometric analysis study covers AI applications in e-health. It differs from the existing literature review as the journal articles are obtained from the Scopus database from its beginning to late 2021 (25 years), which depicts the most recent trend of AI in e-health. The bibliometric analysis is employed to find the statistical and quantitative analysis of available literature of a specific field of study for a particular period. An extensive global literature review is performed to identify the significant research area, authors, or their relationship through published articles. It also provides the researchers with an overview of the work evolution of specific research fields. The study's main contribution highlights the essential authors, journals, institutes, keywords, and states in developing the AI field in e-health.
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.044 | 0.263 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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