Artificial Intelligence in Nursing Decision-Making: A Bibliometric Analysis of Trends and Impacts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Nursing decision-making is pivotal for patient safety and care quality. While artificial intelligence (AI) offers transformative potential in this field, a comprehensive analysis of global research trends is lacking. Methods: We conducted a bibliometric analysis of 238 publications (197 research papers, 41 reviews) from the Web of Science Core Collection (2003–2025) using CiteSpace and VOSviewer. Results: The results reveal growing interest (7.59% annually) in the field of AI in nursing decision-making, with contributions from 54 countries/regions. The USA leads in the number of publications, followed by China and Canada, while the United Kingdom stands out in terms of citation impact. Institutions such as Columbia University and Harvard Medical School dominate in both the publication volume and citation frequency. Journal analysis shows that the top three journals in terms of publication volume in this field are Cin-Computers Informatics Nursing, Journal of Nursing Management, and Applied Clinical Informatics. Keyword analysis highlights the significant potential of natural language processing technologies, particularly those based on large language models (e.g., ChatGPT), in nursing decision-making. Furthermore, emerging trends are evident, with the sudden appearance and rapid growth of keywords such as “patient safety” and “user acceptance”, indicating a shift in research focus from purely technology-driven studies to a greater emphasis on the practical impact of AI technologies on nursing systems and their clinical applications. Conclusions: This study delineates the current landscape and evolving trends of AI in nursing decision-making, emphasizing its progression from theoretical frameworks to clinical integration, thereby providing valuable references for future research.
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 | 0.011 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.142 | 0.232 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".