Mapping Emerging Scientific Trends in Chronic Skin Disorders Using Machine Learning-Based Bibliometrics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic dermatologic diseases are characterized by pathophysiologic complexity and the existence of many unmet patient management needs that can contribute to treatment failure, with poor adherence being a major issue. This study aims to identify key topics in this field, using the Web of Science database. To perform this analysis, tools such as VOSviewer, Bibliometrix, and Excel were used. A Python script leveraging machine learning algorithms was developed to standardize terminology. The initial search yielded 35,373 documents, which were then refined to 12,952 publications spanning 1975 to 2024 through parameter optimization. The study found an increasing interest in this research domain, with a notable surge in 2019. The analysis identified the United States, Germany, and England as the most prolific countries in terms of scientific output. Canada ranked sixth in total document production, but its documents received the highest average citations, reflecting a significant impact. Normalization analysis revealed Italy as the most specialized country in chronic skin disease research relative to total national research output. Trend analysis revealed an evolution in research topics, particularly after 2020, with a growing focus on personalized treatment methods and long-term treatment outcomes. The study highlighted international collaboration, especially among countries with cultural or regional connections, such as those within the European Union. It underscores the growing need for continuous updates and the increasing global focus on chronic skin diseases, highlighting the critical role of staying current with emerging trends to drive advancements in treatment and patient care.
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 | 0.007 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.147 | 0.143 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".