MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389775406 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000036478

Bibliometrics and visual analysis of metformin and gut microbiota from 2012 to 2022: A systematic review

2023· review· en· W4389775406 on OpenAlexaff
Yang Shu, Weidong Li, Qiongying Hu, Daqian Xiong

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsCollege & Association of Registered Nurses of Alberta
FundersChengdu Science and Technology Bureau
KeywordsBibliometricsMetforminMedicineWeb of scienceGut floraMEDLINELibrary scienceVariety (cybernetics)ChinaDiabetes mellitusInternal medicinePolitical scienceMeta-analysisComputer scienceEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Metformin is an old drug used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus and can play a variety of roles by regulating the gut microbiota. The number of research articles on metformin in the gut microbiota has increased annually; however, no bibliometric tools have been used to analyze the research status and hot trends in this field. This study presents a bibliometric analysis of publications on metformin and gut microbiota. METHODS: We searched the Web of Science core collection database on June 8, 2023, for papers related to metformin and gut microbiota from 2012 to 2022. We used Microsoft Excel 2021, VOSviewer1.6.19, CiteSpace 6.2.4, and R software package "bibliometrix" 4.0.0 to analyze the countries, institutions, authors, journals, citations, and keywords of the included publications. RESULTS: We included 517 papers, and the trend in publications increased over the last 11 years. The 517 articles were from 57 countries, including 991 institutions and 3316 authors, and were published in 259 journals. China led all countries (233 papers) and the most influential institution was the Chinese Academy of Sciences (16 papers). PLOS ONE (19 papers) was the most popular journal, and Nature (1598 citations) was the most cited journal. Li and Kim were the 2 most published authors (six papers each), and Cani (272 co-citations) was the most co-cited author. "Metabolites," "aging," and "intestinal barrier" were emerging topics in this field. CONCLUSIONS: This bibliometric study comprehensively summarizes the research trends and progress of metformin and gut microbiota, and provides new research topics and trends for studying the effects of metformin on gut microbiota in different diseases.

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 armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.088
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.088
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.010
Bibliometrics0.1170.125
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.365 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Bibliometrics

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Systematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicGut microbiota and healthCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207