Measuring the growth and trends of neurology research output during 2012-2021
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes scientometric study of the Neurology research in global as per the number of publications indexed in the Web of Science database. During the study period (2012-2021) a total of 12639 publications were published in the field of Neurology. The average number of publications published was 1263.9 and the highest numbers of publications (1741) were published in the year 2021. Neurology research researchers have contributed more in the form of journal articles. Anonymous is the most productive author with 155 (1.23%) publications followed by Matsumoto N with 63 (0.50%) publications. The average productivity per author for the period 2012 to 2021 is 0.26 and the degree of collaboration is C = 0.85. USA topped the list with highest share 4232 (33.48%) of publications. England ranked second with 1345 (10.64%) share of publications followed by Germany 1088 (8.61%) share of publications. 12,423 global institutions involved in the Neurology research. Among these top 12 institutions 9 are from USA, 2 are from UK and one from Canada. The scientific literature on neurology is spread over 1664 different web of science indexed journals.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.038 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".