ArticleJournal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute2026
Microbiome and cancer immunotherapy: a bibliometric analysis.
Article in Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically analyze the global research landscape, collaboration patterns, knowledge flow pathways, and frontier trends in the synergistic effects between the microbiome and cancer immunotherapy.
methodsA systematic bibliometric analysis of publications on the synergistic effects between the microbiome and cancer immunotherapy (2010-2026) was performed using the Web of Science Core Collection. After deduplication, 3,058 publications were analyzed with CiteSpace 6.3.1 (co-citation, keyword burst, timeline), VOSviewer 1.6.19 (co-authorship, co-occurrence networks), and bibliometrix R package 4.4.1 (dual-map overlay, knowledge flow).
resultsAnnual publications grew at an average rate of 23.0%, reaching 715 in 2025. China and the United States contributed 60.1% of global output, with MD Anderson Cancer Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, and Paris-Saclay University serving as core collaboration hubs. Three major academic lineages (fundamental mechanisms, clinical translation, tumor-specific research) and three knowledge flow pathways (mathematical modeling → molecular genetics; clinical medicine → molecular biology; ecology → molecular biology) were identified, shaping distinct research paradigms. Hotspots evolved from "gut microbiota-ICIs" toward "oral microbiota," "engineered bacteria," and "precision prediction."
conclusionThe field has transitioned from mechanistic exploration to precision intervention, with multidisciplinary integration and clinical translation as future priorities. The identified knowledge flow pathways and academic lineages provide a framework for understanding the intellectual structure of this rapidly evolving domain.
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.