Research trends in the field of the gut-brain interaction: Functional dyspepsia in the spotlight – An integrated bibliometric and science mapping approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives This study aims to perform a bibliometric analysis of functional dyspepsia (FD), which includes visualizing bibliographic information, in order to identify prevailing study themes, topics of interest, contributing journals, countries, institutions, and authors as well as co-citation patterns. Methods The Web of Science™ Core Collection Database was used to retrieve all peer-reviewed scientific publications related to FD research. The validated search terms were entered into the “title” and “author keywords” fields, and the results were sorted by publication year from 2006 to 2022. There were no restrictions on language. On 12 February 2023, a manual export of the complete metadata for each original publication and review article was performed. CiteSpace was used to reveal co-authorship, publication, and co-citation patterns to find prominent authors, organizations, countries, and journals in FD research as well as to identify author keywords with strong citation bursts, which could indicate an emerging research area. VOSviewer was used to build the co-occurrence indicator (co-word) to identify the main author keywords on which previous studies focused and to induce clustered scientific landscape for two consecutive periods to identify intriguing areas for future research. Results A search of the database retrieved 2,957 documents. There was a wave-like pattern in the number of publications until 2017, after which there was a spike in publication volume. The USA, China, and Japan provided the majority of contributions. In terms of institution, Mayo Clin, Univ Newcastle, and Katholieke Univ Leuven were found to be the prolific institutions. Additionally, the results indicate that eastern Asian researchers contributed significantly to the global knowledge of literature that led other countries; however, Canada, the USA, Australia, England, and Germany were found to have the highest degree of betweenness centrality. Nicholas J. Talley, Jan Tack, Gerald Holtmann, Michael Camilleri, Ken Haruma, and Paul Moayyedi occupied the top positions based on productivity and centrality indicators. Six thematic clusters emerged ( Helicobacter pylori infection; pathophysiological mechanisms of FD; extraintestinal co-morbidities and overlap syndromes associated with FD; herbal medicine in FD; diabetic gastroparesis; and dietary factors in FD). “Acupuncture,” “duodenal eosinophilia,” “gut microbiota,” and others were among the author keywords with rising prevalence. Conclusion In FD research, eastern Asian countries have established themselves as major contributors with the highest publishing productivity; however, research has primarily been driven by North America, Europe, and Australia, where cooperation is generally more active and highly influential scientific results are produced. Our analysis suggests that increased investments, training of human resources, improved infrastructures, and expanded collaborations are essential to improving the quality of FD research in Asia. The emerging author keyword analysis suggests that eosinophil-mast cell axis, gut microbiota, mental disorders, and acupuncture are the key areas that attract researchers’ attention as future research boulevards. There is a highly skewed distribution of research output across Asia, with most focus on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) coming from Chinese, Japanese, and South Korean centers. However, CAM remains an underexplored area of research in the context of FD, and it deserves greater research efforts in order to obtain quality scientific evidence. Furthermore, we propose that the research framework of CAM should not be limited to dysmotility; rather, it could be interpreted within a more holistic context that includes the brain-gut-microbiota axis, as well as novel concepts such as duodenitis, increased mucosal permeability, and infiltration and activation of eosinophils and mast cells, among others. Overall, we provided bibliometrics-based overviews of relevant literature to researchers from different backgrounds and healthcare professionals to provide an in-depth overview of major trends in FD 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
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: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | 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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.029 | 0.181 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".