Global trends and hotspots in the study of the effects of PM2.5 on ischemic stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The objective of this study was to visually analyse global research trends and hotspots regarding the role of PM2.5 in ischemic stroke. METHODS: The Web of Science core collection database was used to search the literature on PM2.5 and ischemic stroke from 2006 to 2024. Visualization analysis was conducted using CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and an online bibliometric platform. RESULTS: The analysis comprises 190 articles published between 2006 and 2024 by 1229 authors from 435 institutions in 39 countries, across 78 journals. Wellenius GA has the highest number of published and cited papers. China has the highest number of papers, while Canada has the highest citation frequency. Capital Medical University published the highest number of papers, and Harvard University had the highest citation frequency for a single paper. The study investigated the impact of PM2.5 on ischemic stroke in three phases. The first phase analysed hospitalisation rates for correlations. The second phase utilised large-scale multi-cohort data from around the world. The third phase involved studying global exposure risk through machine learning and model construction. Currently, there is limited research on the mechanisms involved, and further in-depth investigation is required. CONCLUSION: This paper presents a bibliometric analysis of the research framework and hotspots concerning the effect of PM2.5 on ischemic stroke. The analysis aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of this field for researchers. It is expected that research on the effect of PM2.5 on ischemic stroke will remain an important research topic in the future.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.041 | 0.048 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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, 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".