ArticleMedicine2023
Evaluating cluster analysis techniques in ChatGPT versus R-language with visualizations of author collaborations and keyword cooccurrences on articles in the Journal of Medicine (Baltimore) 2023: Bibliometric analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global trends and research hotspots in esophageal strictures: A bibliometric study.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Global trends and hotspots of ChatGPT in medical research: a bibliometric and visualized study.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnalyses of author collaborations and keyword co-occurrences are frequently used in bibliographic research. However, no studies have introduced a straightforward yet effective approach, such as utilizing ChatGPT with Code Interpreter (ChatGPT_CI) or the R language, for creating cluster-oriented networks. This research aims to compare cluster analysis methods in ChatGPT_CI and R, visualize country-specific author collaborations, and then demonstrate the most effective approach.
methodsThe research focused on articles and review pieces from Medicine (Baltimore) published in 2023. By August 20, 2023, we had gathered metadata for 1976 articles using the Web of Science core collections. The efficiency and effectiveness of cluster displays between ChatGPT_CI and R were compared by evaluating their time consumption. The best method was then employed to present a series of visualizations of country-specific author collaborations, rooted in social network and cluster analyses. Visualization techniques incorporating network charts, chord diagrams, circle bar plots, circle packing plots, heat dendrograms, dendrograms, and word clouds were demonstrated. We further highlighted the research profiles of 2 prolific authors using timeline visuals.
resultsThe research findings include that (1) the most active contributors were China, Nanjing Medical University (China), the Medical School Department, and Dr Chou from Taiwan when considering countries, institutions, departments, and individual authors, respectively; (2) the highest cited articles originated from Medicine (Baltimore) accounting for 4.53%: New England Journal of Medicine, PLOS ONE, LANCET, and The Journal of the American Medical Association, with respective contributions of 3.25%, 2.7%, 2.52%, and 1.54%; (3) visual cluster analysis in R proved to be more efficient and effective than ChatGPT_CI, reducing the time taken from 1 hour to just 3 minutes; (4) 7 cluster-focused networks were crafted using R on a custom platform; and (5) the research trajectories of 2 prominent authors (Dr Brin from the United States and Dr Chow from Taiwan) and articles themes in Medicine 2023 were depicted using timeline visuals.
conclusionsThis research highlighted the efficient and effective methods for conducting cluster analyses of author collaborations using R. For future related studies, such as keyword co-occurrence analysis, R is recommended as a viable alternative for bibliographic research.
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.