Bibliometric analysis of the 3-year trends (2018–2021) in literature on artificial intelligence in ophthalmology and vision sciences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this analysis is to present a current view of the field of ophthalmology and vision research and artificial intelligence (AI) from topical and geographical perspectives. This will clarify the direction of the field in the future and aid clinicians in adapting to new technological developments. METHODS: A comprehensive search of four different databases was conducted. Statistical and bibliometric analysis were done to characterise the literature. Softwares used included the R Studio bibliometrix package, and VOSviewer. RESULTS: A total of 3939 articles were included in the final bibliometric analysis. Diabetic retinopathy (391, 6% of the top 100 keywords) was the most frequently occurring indexed keyword by a large margin. The highest impact literature was produced by the least populated countries and in those countries who collaborate internationally. This was confirmed via a hypothesis test where no correlation was found between gross number of published articles and average number of citations (p value=0.866, r=0.038), while graphing ratio of international collaboration against average citations produced a positive correlation (r=0.283). Majority of publications were found to be concentrated in journals specialising in vision and computer science, with this category of journals having the highest number of publications per journal (18.00 publications/journal), though they represented a small proportion of the total journals (<1%). CONCLUSION: This study provides a unique characterisation of the literature at the intersection of AI and ophthalmology and presents correlations between article impact and geography, in addition to summarising popular research topics.
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 | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.160 | 0.152 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".