Trends in Research Publication Topics Related to Artificial Intelligence for Medicine in Medical Education: A Bibliometric Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This bibliometric analysis aims to explore the trends in research publication topics related to Artificial Intelligence (AI) for medicine in medical education over the last five years (2019-2023). By synthesizing data from a variety of scholarly articles, this study seeks to identify key themes, emerging areas of interest, and research trends within this specific domain. The research question focuses on understanding the evolution of research topics in AI for medicine in medical education, while the objective is to conduct a comprehensive analysis using bibliometric techniques. Data selection from the Scopus database yielded a total of 389 documents from 290 sources. There are 1889 Authors, with author collaboration points on Co-Authors per Doc of 5.11. Regarding the quantity of published documents, the USA, China, and Canada have the highest documents. The software employed for bibliometric analysis were R and VOSviewer. By leveraging bibliometric analysis, this research aims to address the existing gap in the literature and provide valuable insights for researchers, educators, and practitioners interested in AI applications in medical education. The present solution exploration will offer recommendations for future research directions and priorities within the field, contributing to the advancement of knowledge and practice in the integration of AI technologies in medical education.
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 | 0.011 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.160 | 0.213 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".