Data Privacy in Medical Informatics and Electronic Health Records: A Bibliometric Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to evaluate scientific publications on "Medical Informatics" and "Data Privacy" using a bibliometric approach to identify research trends, the most studied topics, and the countries and institutions with the highest publication output. The search was carried out utilizing the WoS Clarivate Analytics tool across SCIE journals. Subsequently, text mining, keyword clustering, and data visualization were applied through the use of VOSviewer and Tableau Desktop software. Between 1975 and 2023, a total of 7,165 articles were published on the topic of data privacy. The number of articles has been increasing each year. The text mining and clustering analysis identified eight main clusters in the literature: (1) Mobile Health/Telemedicine/IOT, (2) Security/Encryption/Authentication, (3) Big Data/AI/Data Science, (4) Anonymization/Digital Phenotyping, (5) Genomics/Biobank, (6) Ethics, (7) Legal Issues, (8) Cloud Computing. On a country basis, the United States was identified as the most active country in this field, producing the most publications and receiving the highest number of citations. China, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia also emerged as significant countries. Among these clusters, "Mobile Health/Telemedicine/IOT," "Security/Encryption/Authentication," and "Cloud Computing" technologies stood out as the most prominent and extensively studied topics in the intersection of medical informatics and data privacy.
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 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 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.188 | 0.272 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".