ArticleMedicine2022
A comparison of 3 productive authors' research domains based on sources from articles, cited references and citing articles using social network analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analyzing collaboration and impact: A bibliometric review of four highly published authors' research profiles on collaborative maps.Medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- A comprehensive approach for clustering analysis using follower-leading clustering algorithm (FLCA): Bibliometric analysis.Medicine · 2023Article
- Global research trends in artificial intelligence for critical care with a focus on chord network charts: Bibliometric analysis.Medicine · 2023Review
- A leading author of meta-analysis does not have a dominant contribution to research based on the CJAL score: Bibliometric analysis.Medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn individual's research domain (RD) can be determined from objective publication data (e.g., medical subject headings and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms) by performing social network analysis. Bibliographic coupling (such as cocitation) is a similarity metric that relies on citation analysis to determine the similarity in RD between 2 articles. This study compared RD consistency between articles as well as their cited references and citing articles (ARCs).
methodsA total of 1388 abstracts were downloaded from PubMed and authored by 3 productive authors. Based on the top 3 clusters in social network analysis, similarity in RD was observed by comparing their consistency using the major MeSH terms in author articles, cited references and citing articles (ARC). Impact beam plots with La indices were drawn and compared for each of the 3 authors.
resultsSung-Ho Jang (South Korea), Chia-Hung Kao (Taiwan), and Chin-Hsiao Tseng (Taiwan) published 445, 780, and 163 articles, respectively. Dr Jang's RD is physiology, and Dr Kao and Dr Tseng's RDs are epidemiology. We confirmed the consistency of the RD terms by comparing the major MeSH terms in the ARC. Their La indexes were 5, 5, and 6, where a higher value indicates more extraordinary research achievement.
conclusionRD consistency was confirmed by comparing the main MeSH terms in ARC. The 3 approaches of RD determination (based on author articles, the La index, and the impact beam plots) were recommended for bibliographical studies in the future.
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.