MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387076811 · doi:10.32322/jhsm.1305977

Deep brain stimulation from past to future: research trends and global outcomes with bibliometric analysis during 1980-2022

2023· article· en· W4387076811 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sinan Eliaçık, Serdar Aykaç

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Sciences and Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationBrain stimulationStimulationPsychologyNeuroscienceMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims: We aimed to summarize the intellectual structure of the deep brain stimulation (DBS), to reveal the global productivity, to identify and map the latest trends by analysing the social and structural relationships between the different research components of scientific articles published on DBS. Methods: 5939 articles on DBS published during 1980 and 2022 were analysed utilized various statistical approaches. Network visualization maps were created to reveal trend topics, citation analysis, and international collaborations. Spearman's correlation analysis was used for correlation investigations. The exponential smoothing predictor was used to determine the article productivity trend. Results: The most prolific author on DBS was Okun, Michael S. (209 articles) and the most productive institution was the University of Toronto (n=283). The top 3 productive countries were United States of America (n=2371, 39.9%), Germany (910, 15.3%), and United Kingdom (550, 9.2%). From past to present, the most studied topics were Parkinson's disease, subthalamic nucleus DBS, dystonia, globus pallidus, essential tremor, movement disorders, thalamus, functional neurosurgery, neuromodulation, depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, basal ganglia. Conclusion: The primary trend topics that have been studied more in recent years are tractography, freezing of gait, Parkinson’s disease, Parkinson’, Parkinson#apos, autonomy, self, machine learning, non-motor symptoms, functional connectivity, globus pallidus interna, volume of tissue activated, adaptive deep brain stimulation, beta oscillations, medial forebrain bundle, and local field potential. The secondery trend topics were optogenetics, pediatric, frameless, closed-loop DBS, refractory epilepsy, satellite broadcasting, asleep DBS, optimization, biomarker, directional Leeds, nucleus bassals of meynert, personality, authenticity, and anterior nucleus of thalamus.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0330.057
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.370 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health Sciences and MedicineSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207