ArticlePloS one2022
Scientific X-ray: Scanning and quantifying the idea evolution of scientific publications.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid development of modern science nowadays makes it rather challenging to pick out valuable ideas from massive scientific literature. Existing widely-adopted citation-based metrics are not adequate for measuring how well the idea presented by a single publication is developed and whether it is worth following. Here, inspired by traditional X-ray imaging, which returns internal structure imaging of real objects along with corresponding structure analysis, we propose Scientific X-ray, a framework that quantifies the development degree and development potential for any scientific idea through an assembly of 'X-ray' scanning, visualization and parsing operated on the citation network associated with a target publication. We pick all 71,431 scientific articles of citation counts over 1,000 as high-impact target publications among totally 204,664,199 publications that cover 16 disciplines spanning from 1800 to 2021. Our proposed Scientific X-ray reproduces how an idea evolves from the very original target publication all the way to the up to date status via an extracted 'idea tree' that attempts to preserve the most representative idea flow structure underneath each citation network. Interestingly, we observe that while the citation counts of publications may increase unlimitedly, the maximum valid idea inheritance of those target publications, i.e., the valid depth of the idea tree, cannot exceed a limit of six hops, and the idea evolution structure of any arbitrary publication unexceptionally falls into six fixed patterns. Combined with a development potential index that we further design based on the extracted idea tree, Scientific X-ray can vividly tell how further a given idea presented by a given publication can still go from any well-established starting point. Scientific X-ray successfully identifies 40 out of 49 topics of Nobel prize as high-potential topics by their prize-winning papers in an average of nine years before the prizes are released. Various trials on articles of diverse topics also confirm the power of Scientific X-ray in digging out influential/promising ideas. Scientific X-ray is user-friendly to researchers with any level of expertise, thus providing important basis for grasping research trends, helping scientific policy-making and even promoting social development.
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.