MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410079009 · doi:10.70844/jmhrp.2025.2.1.39

A Bibliometric Analysis on Mental Health Research Over the Past Two Decades

2025· article· en· W4410079009 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Randhir Singh Ranta, Tanuj Sharma, Aditi Sharma

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHealth, Environment, Cognitive Aging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthBibliometricsPsychologyRegional scienceGeographyLibrary sciencePsychiatryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research examined mental health publications through a comprehensive bibliometric analysis from 2000 to 2024, encompassing 483 documents published in 279 outlets that had an annual growth rate of 9.5%. The research explored publication trends; leading journals; key authors; key affiliations; collaboration networks of authors, institutions and countries; co-occurrence networks and identified major trending topics and themes. Research has shown that mental health article output experienced a significant growth after 2018 because of new policies and worldwide mental health concerns. Three prominent journals, Psychiatric Services, BMC Psychiatry and The Lancet lead the field because they demonstrate the critical nature of psychiatric and public health research. This analysis highlighted the leading researchers as well as prominent scholarly works while demonstrating that Harvard University and the University of Toronto made significant research contributions. The co-occurrence analysis and thematic map revealed four principal subjects: mental health services, depression, public health policy research and socioeconomic influences. The research investigated international research collaborations where the USA had a leading position in global collaboration. The effect of COVID-19 on mental health and cognitive behavioural therapy were the emerging topics in this field of research. The findings provide essential information about ongoing research trends as well as about influential publications and collaborations that direct future studies.

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: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.180
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0280.208
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.355 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealth, Environment, Cognitive AgingCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207