ArticleJMIR AI2025
Identification and Categorization of the Top 100 Articles and the Future of Large Language Models: Thematic Analysis Using Bibliometric Analysis.
Article in JMIR AI, 2025. 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.
- Evolution of Artificial Intelligence Adoption inOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
- Article
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
Background: Since the release of ChatGPT and other large language models (LLMs), there has been a significant increase in academic publications exploring their capabilities and implications across various fields, such as medicine, education, and technology. Objective: This study aims to identify the most influential academic works on LLMs published in the past year, categorize their research types and thematic focuses, within different professional fields. The study also evaluates the ability of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as ChatGPT, to accurately classify academic research. Methods: We conducted a bibliometric analysis using Clarivate's Web of Science (WOS) to extract the top 100 most cited papers on LLMs. Papers were manually categorized by field, journal, author, and research type. ChatGPT-4 was used to generate categorizations for the same papers, and its performance was compared to human classifications. We summarized the distribution of research fields and assessed the concordance between AI-generated and manual classifications. Results: Medicine emerged as the predominant field among the top 100 most cited papers, accounting for 43 (43%), followed by education 26 (26%) and technology 15 (15%). Medical literature primarily focused on clinical applications of LLMs, limitations of AI in health care, and the role of AI in medical education. In education, research was centered around ethical concerns and potential applications of AI for teaching and learning. ChatGPT demonstrated variable concordance with human reviewers, achieving an agreement rating of 47% for research types and 92% for fields of study. Conclusions: While LLMs such as ChatGPT exhibit considerable potential in aiding research categorization, human oversight remains essential to address issues such as hallucinations, outdated information, and biases in AI-generated outputs. This study highlights the transformative potential of LLMs across multiple sectors and emphasizes the importance of continuous ethical evaluation and iterative improvement of AI systems to maximize their benefits while minimizing risks.
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.