Scientometric Analysis of Activated Carbon or Probiotics in Mouthwashes or Toothpastes: Dynamicity, Spatiotemporal Evolution and Trends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of activated charcoal and probiotics is a controversial topic nowadays due to their potential oral health benefits. Thus, the aim of this research was to perform a scientometric analysis of activated charcoal or probiotics in mouthwashes or dentifrices by means of dynamicity, spatiotemporal evolution, and trends. A study was carried out to look back at scientific publications between 2005 and 2022 using the Web of Science. To analyze the data, various bibliometric indicators were used. The process of retrieving information was completed on July 28, 2023. It was found that only 1 article was published in 1990. Furthermore, the highest co-citation occurred in cluster 9 (Dentistry, Dermatology, Surgery), indicating a higher relevance and frequency with cluster 8 (Molecular Biology, Genetics). In the cluster view, 15 large clusters were identified, with cluster 0 (Activated Carbon) being the largest and occupying the greatest centrality. On the other hand, the cross-country collaboration map showed active collaborations between Australia and New Zealand, Brazil, and Canada. We found a significant growth of scientific publications on probiotics and activated charcoal in the field of dentistry and related disciplines between 1990 and 2023.
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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".