ArticleHeliyon2024
What's next? Forecasting scientific research trends.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Scientific landscape and visualization analysis of the link between adenomyosis and infertility from 2000 to 2024.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- InterFeat: a pipeline for finding interesting scientific features.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- From Point Clouds to Predictive Maintenance: A Review of Intelligent Railway Infrastructure Monitoring.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Unmeasured human transcription factor ChIP-seq data shape functional genomics and demand strategic prioritization.Briefings in functional genomics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scientific research trends and interests evolve over time. The ability to identify and forecast these trends is vital for educational institutions, practitioners, investors, and funding organizations. In this study, we predict future trends in scientific publications using heterogeneous sources, including historical publication time series from PubMed, research and review articles, pre-trained language models, and patents. We demonstrate that scientific topic popularity levels and changes (trends) can be predicted five years in advance across 40 years and 125 diverse topics, including life-science concepts, biomedical, anatomy, and other science, technology, and engineering topics. Preceding publications and future patents are leading indicators for emerging scientific topics. We find the ratio of reviews to original research articles informative for identifying increasing or declining topics, with declining topics having an excess of reviews. We find that language models provide improved insights and predictions into temporal dynamics. In temporal validation, our models substantially outperform the historical baseline. Our findings suggest that similar dynamics apply across other scientific and engineering research topics. We present SciTrends, a user-friendly webtool for predicting future publication trends for any topic covered in PubMed.
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.