Unveiling transplantation research productivity of United States: A bibliometric analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The United States has witnessed significant advancements in the field of organ transplantation over the course of the last five decades, as demonstrated by a notable increase in the quantity of academic research. The presence of a highly dynamic research environment necessitates continuous evaluations to maintain the integrity and progress of the field. AIM: To evaluate the total output and thematic emphasis of transplant research conducted in the United States. METHODS: On January 10, 2023, we conducted a bibliometric search of United States research output in transplantation journals from the Web of Science database's Science Citation Index Expanded. We excluded editorials, meeting abstracts, and other non-article types. We analyzed annual trends, authors, institutions, articles, keywords, and countries collaborating with the United States, using VOSviewer 1.6.18 to create figures and tables. RESULTS: The United States published 25956 papers (3078 reviews and 22878 articles) representing 37.7% of the world's scientific output. Canada emerged as the top collaborator with the United States, co-authoring 1263 articles. Leading institutions in United States transplantation research were the University of Pittsburgh (1749 articles), Mayo Clinic (1605 articles), Harvard Medical School (1549 articles), and Johns Hopkins University (1280 articles). The top three keywords with over 2000 occurrences were "recipients," "survival," and "outcomes," indicating a focus on graft and recipient outcome markers by United States researchers. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate the United States leadership in organ transplantation research, contributing significantly to the global scientific output in this field. However, opportunities exist for fostering expansive partnerships, particularly with developing countries. This study provides valuable insights into the transplantation research landscape in the United States, emphasizing the importance of ongoing evaluations to maintain and propel advancements in this critical medical discipline. The results may facilitate future collaborations, knowledge exchange, and the pursuit of innovative solutions in the realm of organ transplantation.
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 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 | 0.019 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.180 | 0.257 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".