Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38312608›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

Bibliometric analysis and research trends of artificial intelligence in lung cancer.

Adem Gencer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Adem GencerAdem Gencer, Assistant Professor, Department of Thoracic Surgery, Afyonkarahisar Health Sciences University, Faculty of Medicine, Zafer Sağlık Külliyesi, Dörtyol Mah. 2078 Sok. No:3 A Blok, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Due to the rapid advancement of technology, artificial intelligence (AI) has become extensively used for the diagnosis and prognosis of various diseases, such as lung cancer. Research in the field of literature has demonstrated that artificial intelligence (AI) can be valuable in the timely detection of lung cancer and the formulation of an effective treatment plan. This study aims to conduct a bibliometric analysis to examine and illustrate the specific areas of focus, research frontiers, evolutionary processes, and trends in existing research on artificial intelligence in the context of lung cancer. Methods: Publications on AI in lung cancer were selected from the SCIE and ESCI indexes on September 19, 2023. The examination of nations, academic publications, organizations, writers, citations, and terms in this domain was visually analyzed with InCites and VOSviewer. Results: In this study, a total of 4275 publications were selected and analyzed. Artificial intelligence-related lung cancer publications have increased significantly in the last 5 years. China and the USA have contributed the most to the literature in this field (1418 publications with 13.92 citation impacts and 1117 publications with 37.34 citation impacts, respectively). The institution with the highest contribution was "Chinese Academy of Sciences," with 118 publications and 29.09 citation impacts. Among the research categories, "Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Imaging", "Oncology", and "Engineering, Biomedical" were in first place. Conclusion: The USA and China have always been leaders in this field and will continue to be for some time. Research in countries such as the Netherlands is increasing. However, research collaboration has to be strengthened in developing countries.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceBibliometric analysisLung cancerResearch hotspotsResearch trends

Identifiers

PMID38312608
PMCPMC10835254

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.