ArticleScientific reports2026
A CD index guided ensemble framework for screening potentially disruptive patent candidates in artificial intelligence.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Disruptive technologies can reconfigure innovation trajectories and create new market opportunities, yet their early detection remains difficult because disruptive impact is uncertain and often becomes visible only years after invention. Building on the CD disruptiveness measure derived from citation-network dynamics, this study develops an interpretable machine-learning framework to screen and prioritize potentially disruptive patent candidates ex ante. Using IncoPat patent records in the artificial intelligence domain, we construct a multidimensional indicator system spanning technological, market, and legal signals. To ensure conceptual consistency with the CD framework, the main disruption label is defined as patents falling within the top 5% of the empirical CD distribution among patents with at least one backward citation. This definition allows disruptiveness to be assessed relative to identifiable prior art and reduces reliance on extreme CD values that may be sensitive to incomplete reference information. We train models on a time-split learning set covering patents filed from 2007 to 2021 and evaluate their ability to predict this stricter disruption label using early observable patent metadata. Among benchmarked classifiers, AdaBoost provides the most competitive screening performance after feature selection, reducing the feature space from 17 to 12 indicators. Under the main top-5% specification, the model achieves an accuracy of 0.914, a precision of 0.271, a recall of 0.431, and an F1 score of 0.333, indicating modest but nontrivial early-screening ability. Feature importance analysis highlights the predictive relevance of citation- and disclosure-related signals, including family citation activity, backward citations, and document length. The framework is best interpreted as a scalable candidate-generation tool for monitoring and expert review within the patented segment of AI innovation, rather than as a definitive classifier of realized disruptive impact.
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.