Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38624813›Full record

ArticleSmall business economics2023

Topic-based classification and identification of global trends for startup companies.

Ivan Savin, Kristina Chukavina, Andrey Pushkarev

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Small business economics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Ivan SavinInstitute of Environmental Science and Technology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-9469-0510
Kristina ChukavinaGraduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, Yekaterinburg, Russian Federation.
Andrey PushkarevGraduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, Yekaterinburg, Russian Federation.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To foresee global economic trends, one needs to understand the present startup companies that soon may become new market leaders. In this paper, we explore textual descriptions of more than 250 thousand startups in the Crunchbase database. We analyze the 2009-2019 period by using topic modeling. We propose a novel classification of startup companies free from expert bias that contains 38 topics and quantifies the weight of each of these topics for all the startups. Taking the year of establishment and geographical location of the startups into account, we measure which topics were increasing or decreasing their share over time, and which of them were predominantly present in Europe, North America, or other regions. We find that the share of startups focused on data analytics, social platforms, and financial transfers, and time management has risen, while an opposite trend is observed for mobile gaming, online news, and online social networks as well as legal and professional services. We also identify strong regional differences in topic distribution, suggesting certain concentration of the startups. For example, sustainable agriculture is presented stronger in South America and Africa, while pharmaceutics, in North America and Europe. Furthermore, we explore which pairs of topics tend to co-occur more often together, quantify how multisectoral the startups are, and which startup classes attract more investments. Finally, we compare our classification to the one existing in the Crunchbase database, demonstrating how we improve it.

Indexed as

CrunchbaseEntrepreneurshipInvestmentsMachine learningNatural language processing

Identifiers

PMID38624813
PMCPMC8886868

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.