Progress and Research Trends in Lumpy Skin Disease Based on the Scientometric Assessment – A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Lumpy skin disease (LSD) has been a significant concern in veterinary medicine since its discovery. Despite decades of research, understanding the full spectrum of this disease remains a challenge. To address this gap, a comprehensive analysis of the existing body of knowledge on LSD is essential. Bibliometric analysis offers a systematic approach towards the mapping of research landscape, identifying key contributors, and uncovering emerging trends in LSD research. Objective: This study aims to conduct a thorough bibliometric analysis spanning from 1947 till the present date in order to map the knowledge domain of LSD. The objective is to gain insights into the global research trends, identify influential contributors, explore collaboration networks, and predict future outlook in LSD research. Method: Data extracted from the Scopus database was used to perform a bibliometric analysis. 341 relevant documents were selected for analysis. Bibliometric indicators, including publication numbers, citation counts, and the h-index, were utilized to assess the comprehensive contributions of nations, organizations, authors, and source titles. Additionally, cooperation networks between countries, organizations, and authors were visualized using the VOSviewer tool. Results: The analysis revealed a significant increase in research output on LSD, with a notable growth rate of 19.26%. Since its discovery in Zambia in 1929, LSD research has grown steadily, with an average annual growth rate of 5.21%. The University of Pretoria and the Federal Centre for Animal Health emerged as the most active institutions and organizations in LSD research. The Journal of Virology was identified as the most cited journal, reflecting its significant impact on the field, and a strong international collaboration was observed between the United Kingdom and South Africa. Conclusion: This study provides valuable insights into the global research landscape of LSD, highlighting key trends, contributors, and collaboration networks. By reviewing decades of research, this analysis enhances our understanding of LSD and serves as a foundation for future research endeavors. The findings of this study will aid researchers in navigating the vast literature on LSD, ultimately contributing to advancements in veterinary medicine and disease management strategies.
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 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 | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".