Bibliometric study of scientific production in Scopus on psychiatric nutrition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Nutrition is a crucial aspect in psychiatry, as a proper diet can decrease the impact and disability associated with mental disorders. Therefore, it is necessary to know the current state of available information for the scientific community on this topic. Objective: To characterize the scientific production indexed in Scopus on psychiatric nutrition from 2019 to 2022. Method: A bibliometric study was conducted on scientific production related to psychiatric nutrition indexed in Scopus from 2019 to 2022. Bibliometric indicators of productivity, impact, and collaboration were studied. The data were exported from the bibliographic database in question and processed with the support of VOSviewer and Microsoft Excel tools. Results: Between 2019 and 2022, the scientific production on psychiatric nutrition available in Scopus covered a total of 198 publications. The year with the highest production was 2021 with 29.8% of the published documents in the studied period. Citations of publications tended to decrease. A chronological analysis of the co-occurrence of the term "nutrition" in detail allowed us to observe a higher frequency of this term in publications in 2020. Regarding collaboration between countries, the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia stood out. Conclusions: Scientific production on psychiatric nutrition has grown moderately from 2019 to 2022, although its impact has remained in decline. It is important to strengthen the production of knowledge about this topic and promote interdisciplinary collaboration between psychiatry, psychology, and nutrition
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 | Observational | 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 | 0.015 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.219 | 0.311 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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.
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".