Scientific Production Dynamics in mHealth for Diabetes: Scientometric Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The widespread use of mobile technologies in health care (mobile health; mHealth) has facilitated disease management, especially for chronic illnesses such as diabetes. mHealth for diabetes is an attractive alternative to reduce costs and overcome geographical and temporal barriers to improve patients' conditions. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to reveal the dynamics of scientific publications on mHealth for diabetes to gain insights into who are the most prominent authors, countries, institutions, and journals and what are the most cited documents and current hot spots. METHODS: A scientometric analysis based on a competitive technology intelligence methodology was conducted. An innovative 8-step methodology supported by experts was executed considering scientific documents published between 1998 and 2021 in the Science Citation Index Expanded database. Publication language, publication output characteristics, journals, countries and institutions, authors, and most cited and most impactful articles were identified. RESULTS: The insights obtained show that a total of 1574 scientific articles were published by 7922 authors from 90 countries, with an average of 15 (SD 38) citations and 6.5 (SD 4.4) authors per article. These documents were published in 491 journals and 92 Web of Science categories. The most productive country was the United States, followed by the United Kingdom, China, Australia, and South Korea, and the top 3 most productive institutions came from the United States, whereas the top 3 most cited articles were published in 2016, 2009, and 2017 and the top 3 most impactful articles were published in 2016 and 2017. CONCLUSIONS: This approach provides a comprehensive knowledge panorama of research productivity in mHealth for diabetes, identifying new insights and opportunities for research and development and innovation, including collaboration with other entities, new areas of specialization, and human resource development. The findings obtained are useful for decision-making in policy planning, resource allocation, and identification of research opportunities, benefiting researchers, health professionals, and decision makers in their efforts to make significant contributions to the advancement of diabetes science.
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 | 0.031 | 0.147 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.089 | 0.152 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".