ReviewFrontiers in research metrics and analytics2024
A bibliometric review of predictive modelling for cervical cancer risk.
Review in Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Research on machine learning-based clinical prediction models: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Building bridges to immunotherapy: a knowledge-mapping analysis of cervical cancer organoid research.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cervical cancer represents a significant public health challenge, particularly affecting women's health globally. This study aims to advance the understanding of cervical cancer risk prediction research through a bibliometric analysis. The study identified 800 records from Scopus and Web of Science databases, which were reduced to 142 unique records after removing duplicates. Out of 100 abstracts assessed, 42 were excluded based on specific criteria, resulting in 58 studies included in the bibliometric review. Multiple scoping methods such as thematic analysis, citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, natural language processing, Latent Dirichlet Allocation and other visualisation techniques were used to analyse related publications between 2013 and 2024. The key findings revealed the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration in cervical cancer risk prediction, integrating expertise from mathematical disciplines, biomedical health, healthcare practitioners, public health, and policy. This approach significantly enhanced the accuracy and efficiency of cervical cancer detection and predictive modelling by adopting advanced machine learning algorithms, such as random forests and support vector machines. The main challenges were the lack of external validation on independent datasets and the need to address model interpretability to ensure healthcare providers understand and trust the predictive models. The study revealed the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration in cervical cancer risk prediction. It made recommendations for future research to focus on increasing the external validation of models, improving model interpretability, and promoting global research collaborations to enhance the comprehensiveness and applicability of cervical cancer risk prediction models.
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.