MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379232582 · doi:10.47909/ijsmc.48

Covid-19 associated coagulopathy (CAC): Global research output, 2020-2022

2023· article· en· W4379232582 on OpenAlexfundno aff
B. M. Gupta, Mallikarjun Kappi, Rajpal Walke, Madhu Bansal, Aurum Mandal

Bibliographic record

VenueIberoamerican Journal of Science Measurement and Communication · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal and Optic Conditions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité de ParisUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustPeking Union Medical College HospitalSchool of Medicine, Emory UniversityUniversità degli Studi di VeronaUppsala UniversitetUniversitat de BarcelonaMedizinische Universität WienNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensUniversità degli Studi di GenovaUniversity of TorontoEmory UniversityUniversity College LondonUniversità degli Studi di MilanoMcMaster UniversityJohns Hopkins UniversityUniversità di CataniaSchool of Medicine, Duke UniversityPeking Union Medical CollegeHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyIsfahan University of Medical SciencesUniversität WienMassachusetts General Hospital
KeywordsScopusChinaCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)CoagulopathyCitationMedicineLibrary science2019-20 coronavirus outbreakPolitical scienceMEDLINEInternal medicineVirologyComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective. This study examined the Covid-19 associated coagulopathy (CAC) publication and citation trends, focusing on the top authors, countries, organizations, journals, collaboration, subject areas, keywords, and high-cited articles. Design/Methodology/Approach. Publications data on Covid-19 associated coagulopathy (CAC) were identified and extracted from the Scopus database. Data analysis has been performed using VOS viewer software, Biblioshiny, and MS Excel Software. Results/Discussion. The study identified 1740 articles on Covid-19 associated coagulopathy from the Scopus database, which received 47,502 citations, averaging 27.3 citations per paper. In all, 905 authors from 601 organizations originating in 96 countries participated in research and published in 776 journals. United States, Italy, and China contributed the most publications (498, 258, and 164 papers). While China (73.43 and 2.69), France (57.60 and 2.11,) and Germany (50.13 and 1.84) registered the highest citation impact by CPP and RCI. Harvard Medical School, USA, Huazhong University of S&T, China, and Tongji Medical College, China, lead with most of the publications (4,4, 41, and 39 papers). In contrast, Tongji Medical College, China (198.31 and 7.26), Huazhong University of S&T, China (198.15 and 7.26), and University College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, U.K (129.23 and 4.73) lead in citation impact. J.H. Levy, T. Iba and M. Levy contributed to most of the publications (27, 25, and 20), while N. Tag (804.75 and 29.48), A. Tripodi (157.83 and 5.78), and J. Thachil (154.17 and 5.65) registered the highest citation impact by CPP and RCI. Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis, and Thrombosis Research were the most productive ones (with 55, 51, and 46 publications). At the same time, Medical Hypotheses (1222), Blood (355.71) and Thrombosis Journal (233.86) were the most impactful journals. The top 9 keywords were Covid-19 (1681 occurrences), Blood Clotting (952), D Dimer (652), C (628), Coagulopathy (628), Thrombosis (584), blood (506), Anticoagulants (499), Blood Coagulation (426) and Fibrinogen (376). Conclusions. Global research on Covid-19 associated coagulopathy since the pandemic was considered for scientometric assessment for the first time, combining the productivity and citation measures to present an overall picture of the literature in this area. Such an analysis will provide scholars and policy-makers with a meaningful reference for further exploration of topical issues and research trends in the field.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.716

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.245 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIberoamerican Journal of Science Measurement and CommunicationSame topicRetinal and Optic ConditionsFrench-language works237,207