MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403187083 · doi:10.7759/cureus.71001

A Century of Mathematical Epidemiology: A Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization of Research Trends

2024· review· en· W4403187083 on OpenAlexaff
Pratheesh Mathew, Dary John, Jais Kurian, Tony Cherian, Jobin Jose

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsSt. Stephen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVisualizationEpidemiologyBibliometricsData scienceLibrary scienceData miningPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Defined as the application of mathematical models and methods for the study of disease spread and control, Mathematical epidemiology has now emerged as a very important area for understanding public health dynamics. The paper presents an overall bibliometric analysis of research in mathematical epidemiology using the Scopus database. This overview comprises 1,787 documents: journal articles, book chapters, and conference papers from 819 sources. From 1916 to 2024, it has been possible to identify key trends, influential authors, and central themes through the application of the PRISMA methodology. The results reflect that since 2000, there has been a significant growth in research production; most of it was during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study also determined trends in international collaboration, leading funding sponsors, and the dynamics underlying major research topics. According to this study, the role of mathematical models in epidemiology is becoming increasingly prominent, driven by the need to address complex global health challenges and an expanding influence on public health 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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.102
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.172
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1020.172
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.9230.979
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.855
GPT teacher head0.729
Teacher spread0.126 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Bibliometrics

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207