MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405274217 · doi:10.2196/58165

Topics and Trends of Health Informatics Education Research: Scientometric Analysis

2024· article· en· W4405274217 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Han Qing

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth informaticsInformaticsData scienceComputer scienceLibrary sciencePolitical scienceHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Academic and educational institutions are making significant contributions toward training health informatics professionals. As research in health informatics education (HIE) continues to grow, it is useful to have a clearer understanding of this research field. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to comprehensively explore the research topics and trends of HIE from 2014 to 2023. Specifically, it aims to explore (1) the trends of annual articles, (2) the prolific countries/regions, institutions, and publication sources, (3) the scientific collaborations of countries/regions and institutions, and (4) the major research themes and their developmental tendencies. METHODS: Using publications in Web of Science Core Collection, a scientometric analysis of 575 articles related to the field of HIE was conducted. The structural topic model was used to identify topics discussed in the literature and to reveal the topic structure and evolutionary trends of HIE research. RESULTS: Research interest in HIE has clearly increased from 2014 to 2023, and is continually expanding. The United States was found to be the most prolific country in this field. Harvard University was found to be the leading institution with the highest publication productivity. Journal of Medical Internet Research, Journal of The American Medical Informatics Association, and Applied Clinical Informatics were the top 3 journals with the highest articles in this field. Countries/regions and institutions having higher levels of international collaboration were more impactful. Research on HIE could be modeled into 7 topics related to the following areas: clinical (130/575, 22.6%), mobile application (123/575, 21.4%), consumer (99/575, 17.2%), teaching (61/575, 10.6%), public health (56/575, 9.7%), discipline (55/575, 9.6%), and nursing (51/575, 8.9%). The results clearly indicate the unique foci for each year, depicting the process of development for health informatics research. CONCLUSIONS: This is believed to be the first scientometric analysis exploring the research topics and trends in HIE. This study provides useful insights and implications, and the findings could be used as a guide for HIE contributors.

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 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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.014
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.614
Teacher spread0.474 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical EducationSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207