PEDIATRIC ACCEPTANCE AND SWALLOWABILITY OF MINITABLETS: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study examines current on-going research in the area of acceptance and swallowability of minitablets in paediatrics. The purpose behind this enquiry is due to need for development of minitablets for paediatrics use and determining the safety, acceptability and swallowability of minitablets in children. By going through this paper one will gain knowledge about the aspects in which research has been completed and which areas are yet to be explored. Methods: The primary goal of this investigation is to combine research published on acceptance and swallowability of minitablets in paediatrics from year 1989 to 2023 in journals indexed by web of science core collection database. Employing bibliometric techniques such as authorship pattern, countries involved, funding agencies, co-authorship pattern etc. Result: A total of 111 documents have been found from year 1989 to 2023 with total 2,993 citation received so far. The active years of publications is from 2012 to 2023. The countries contributing in this research topic are England, Germany, USA, France, Netherlands, Switzerland, Japan, Belgium, Italy, Norway, Poland, India, Canada. For accurate searching and retrieving of data keywords and Boolean operators such as "mini tablet*" AND ("pediatric" OR "children") AND "safety" AND ("swallow*" OR "accept*") are used. Conclusion: This bibliometric analysis displays and provides information on this topic and can be used for identifying recent trends, most prolific authors, most impactful journals, contributing countries for research on acceptance and swallowability of minitablets in paediatrics.
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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
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 | 0.006 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.122 | 0.164 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".