Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40876962›Full record

ReviewThe European respiratory journal2025

Characterising research trends in bronchiectasis through AI-powered analytics.

Jayanth Kumar Narayana, Yolanda Koo Wei Ling, Micheál Mac Aogáin, Sanjay H Chotirmall

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The European respiratory journal, 2025. 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. Microbiome and its role in bronchiectasis.Therapeutic advances in respiratory disease
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jayanth Kumar NarayanaLee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8794-9048
Yolanda Koo Wei LingLee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.
Micheál Mac AogáinDepartment of Biochemistry, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Sanjay H ChotirmallLee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore schotirmall@ntu.edu.sg.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0417-7607

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInterest in bronchiectasis is increasing and no prior study has used artificial intelligence (AI) to interrogate its rich, multidimensional literature to characterise research trends, themes and knowledge gaps.

methodsWe reviewed original bronchiectasis research between 1949 and 2024 (a 75-year period) to identify, characterise and assess research trends and trajectories using two AI-powered approaches: 1) Atlas, an AI topic-modelling tool; and 2) a custom model, leveraging ChatGPT embedding and text generation models.

resultsAI-powered analytics revealed a nine-fold increase in bronchiectasis research speed since 2000, typified by enhanced richness with four new research topics emerging every 5 years. Publication trends mirror clinical and technological advances, exemplified by significant rises in computed tomography, microbiome and clinical studies following the adoption of high-resolution computed tomography (1970s), next-generation sequencing (2005) and the first clinical guidelines (2008-2010), respectively. Topics with sustained growth (

conclusionAI captures bronchiectasis as a dynamic and interdisciplinary field in continuing growth. Emerging research topics extend beyond the vicious vortex framework, indicating a transition from disease-centric to patient-centric approaches to optimise clinical care.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBiomedical ResearchBronchiectasisHumansMicrobiotaTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID40876962
PMCPMC12675959

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.