Knowledge atlas of white matter microstructure: a bibliometric analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: White matter microstructure is valued for being an indicator of neural network integrity, which plays an indispensable role in the execution of advanced brain functions. Although the number of publications has increased in the past 10 years, no comprehensive analysis has yet been conducted of this field. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the research hotspots and trends in research on white matter microstructure using a bibliometric analysis of the related literature published from 2013 to 2022. Methods: VOSviewer and CiteSpace were used to objectively analyze the research articles concerning white matter microstructure, which were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC). Results: A total of 5,806 publications were obtained, with the number of published articles increasing annually over the past decade. The United States, China, the United Kingdom, and Canada maintained the top positions worldwide and had strong cooperative relationships. The top institution and journal were Harvard Medical School and Neuroimage, respectively. Alexander Leemans, Marek Kubicki, and Martha E Shenton were the most productive authors. Thematic keywords mainly included "diffusion tensor imaging" (DTI), "white matter integrity", and "connectivity". The keyword analysis revealed that DTI has a critical role in detecting white matter microstructure integrity and that fractional anisotropy is the main parameter in the assessment process. Keyword burst detection identified four research hotspots: movement, distortion correction, voxelwise analysis, and fixel-based analysis. Conclusions: This bibliometric analysis provided a systematic understanding of the research on white matter microstructure and identified the current frontiers. This may help clinicians and researchers comprehensively identify hotspots and trends in this field.
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 | 0.009 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.247 | 0.265 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".