TRANSTORNOS DE ANSIEDADE EM IDOSOS: UM ESTUDO BIBLIOMÉTRICO ANXIETY DISORDERS IN THE ELDERLY PEOPLE: A BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJETIVO: Esboçar o panorama científico sobre os sintomas dos transtornos de ansiedade em idosos. MÉTODOS: Trata-se de um artigo original com abordagem descritiva através de um estudo bibliométrico a partir de dois bancos gerados pela SCOPUS, os dados foram organizados com o Rayyan com a retirada das duplicidades e o VOSviewer foi o software escolhido para realizar as análises bibliométricas. RESULTADOS: Destaca-se que as análises bibliométricas agruparam os termos em clusters, corroborando com os pressupostos teóricos encontrados, com a prevalência de sintomas clínicos e doenças neurológicas associando-se com as intervenções e aspectos sociais, entretanto, os índices também revelam novas linhas de pesquisas. A partir das análises mais minuciosas e individualizadas da bibliometria, podemos inferir que os termos associados aos sintomas dos transtornos de ansiedade e idosos estabelecem baixa correlação, existindo assim, lacunas e fragilidades no campo de pesquisa com este tema. CONCLUSÃO: Este estudo permitiu explorar os sintomas dos transtornos de ansiedade em idosos através do campo literário e científico produzido em 2020, 2021 e 2022 em um cenário mundial com o total de 22.087 documentos, sendo 17.665 artigos e 4.422 revisões. Sugerimos que novos estudos com o objetivo de avançar frente a temática, ressaltando a importância dos estudos longitudinais e/ou multidisciplinares devido à natureza das variáveis.
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: 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 | Other design | high |
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 | 0.010 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.097 | 0.147 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".