Global Trends in Poliomyelitis Research: A Bibliometric Analysis from 1857–2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evolution of poliomyelitis (polio) research, an acute viral infection predominantly affecting children and ranging from mild illness to disabling paralysis, was systematically evaluated through a bibliometric analysis of publications from 1857 to 2019.Six thousand one hundred thirty-nine polio-related publications were extracted from the Web of Science and Scopus databases, employing 'Polio' as the keyword.Publications were predominantly in article format (71.16%), with English-language documents constituting 30% of the dataset.The analysis, executed using EndNote, Microsoft Excel, R (Biblioshiny), and VOSviewer, identified 2014 as the peak year of polio literature output, featuring 340 publications.A shift from single to collaborative authorship was observed, with multiple authorship patterns emerging more prominently.This trend highlights a transition towards interdisciplinary collaboration in the field.Despite the dominance of articles, a diverse array of sixteen document types was catalogued.The journal 'Vaccine' was the pivotal publication venue, representing a nexus for polio-related discourse.The institutional analysis placed the World Health Organization at the epicenter of polio research, with universities and private research entities following suit.The geographical spread of contributions was vast, covering 114 regions.Nonetheless, a significant proportion of the literature (33.5%) remained uncited, suggesting an untapped potential for research impact.Citation analysis yielded an average citation rate of 9.52%, and cocitation analysis unveiled a network of 4,758 references despite incomplete citation data in several records.Visualization maps elucidated recurrent thematic terms such as 'polio', 'children', 'eradication', 'vaccine', and 'virus', indicating the focal points of scholarly communication.This study not only delineates the historiography of polio research but also underscores the necessity for enhanced dissemination and integration of findings to fortify the global health response to poliomyelitis.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.097 | 0.161 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".