ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2018
A comparative quantitative study of utilizing artificial intelligence on electronic health records in the USA and China during 2008-2017.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence in Health Promotion and Disease Reduction: Rapid Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Review
- Evaluating Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Settings-Let Us Not Reinvent the Wheel.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Impact of clinical information on CT diagnosis by radiologist and subsequent clinical management by physician in acute abdominal pain.European radiology · 2021Article
- The role of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a structured literature review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- Article
- Discovering thematic change and evolution of utilizing social media for healthcare research.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019Article
- Bibliometric analysis on the adoption of artificial intelligence applications in the e-health sector.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe application of artificial intelligence techniques for processing electronic health records data plays increasingly significant role in advancing clinical decision support. This study conducts a quantitative comparison on the research of utilizing artificial intelligence on electronic health records between the USA and China to discovery their research similarities and differences.
methodsPublications from both Web of Science and PubMed are retrieved to explore the research status and academic performances of the two countries quantitatively. Bibliometrics, geographic visualization, collaboration degree calculation, social network analysis, latent dirichlet allocation, and affinity propagation clustering are applied to analyze research quantity, collaboration relations, and hot research topics.
resultsThere are 1031 publications from the USA and 173 publications from China during 2008-2017 period. The annual numbers of publications from the USA and China increase polynomially. JAMIA with 135 publications and JBI with 13 publications are the top prolific journals for the USA and China, respectively. Harvard University with 101 publications and Zhejiang University with 12 publications are the top prolific affiliations for the USA and China, respectively. Massachusetts is the most prolific region with 211 publications for the USA, while for China, Taiwan is the top 1 with 47 publications. China has relatively higher institutional and international collaborations. Nine main research areas for the USA are identified, differentiating 7 for China.
conclusionsThere is a steadily growing presence and increasing visibility of utilizing artificial intelligence on electronic health records for the USA and China over the years. The results of the study demonstrate the research similarities and differences, as well as strengths and weaknesses of the two countries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.