A Bird's-Eye View of Alzheimer's Disease Research: Reflecting Different Perspectives of Indexers, Authors, or Citers in Mapping the Field
A Bird's-Eye View of Alzheimer's Disease Research: Reflecting Different Perspectives of Indexers, Authors, or Citers in Mapping the Field
复制标题
DOI：
10.3233/jad-142688
复制
发表时间：
2015-01-01
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Song, Min
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lee, Dahee;Kim, Won Chul;Song, Min
在过去的 30 年里，旨在了解病理生理学并改进该疾病的诊断、管理和最终治疗的阿尔茨海默病 (AD) 研究迅速发展。最近，一些研究使用简单的文献计量方法来调查该领域的研究趋势和进展。在我们的研究中，我们通过应用实体计量学（文献计量学的扩展概念）来绘制 AD 研究领域的地图，以捕获索引者、作者或引用者的观点。使用从 PubMed Central 检索到的带有参考部分的全文文档，我们构建了四种类型的网络：MeSH-MeSH (MM)、MeSH-Citation-MeSH (MCM)、Keyphrase-Keyphrase (KK) 和 Keyphrase-Citation-Keyphrase (KCK) 网络。工作假设是 MeSH、关键词和引用关系分别反映了索引者、作者和/或引用者的观点。在比较网络和中心性分析中，我们发现这些观点是不同的：索引者强调淀粉样蛋白相关实体，包括方法学术语，而作者则关注特定的生物医学术语，包括临床综合征。我们的研究中报道的更加密集和复杂的引用关系网络在一定程度上反映了基础科学发现对 AD 的影响。然而，如果没有转化和临床相关 AD 研究的研究者之间的密切合作（反映在索引器和作者网络中），这些都不可能与患者具有临床相关性。我们的方法与该领域的研究具有相关性，因为它们可以识别不同发展之间的关系，而这些关系在其他方面并不明显。这些进展与先进的可视化技术相结合，可能有助于发现基因和通路之间的新相互作用，或用作推进临床药物开发的资源。
During the last 30 years, Alzheimer's disease (AD) research, aiming to understand the pathophysiology and to improve the diagnosis, management, and, ultimately, treatment of the disease, has grown rapidly. Recently, some studies have used simple bibliometric approaches to investigate research trends and advances in the field. In our study, we map the AD research field by applying entitymetrics, an extended concept of bibliometrics, to capture viewpoints of indexers, authors, or citers. Using the full-text documents with reference section retrieved from PubMed Central, we constructed four types of networks: MeSH-MeSH (MM), MeSH-Citation-MeSH (MCM), Keyphrase-Keyphrase (KK), and Keyphrase-Citation-Keyphrase (KCK) networks. The working hypothesis was that MeSH, keyphrase, and citation relationships reflect the views of indexers, authors, and/or citers, respectively. In comparative network and centrality analysis, we found that those views are different: indexers emphasize amyloid-related entities, including methodological terms, while authors focus on specific biomedical terms, including clinical syndromes. The more dense and complex networks of citing relationships reported in our study, to a certain extent reflect the impact of basic science discoveries in AD. However, none of these could have had clinical relevance for patients without close collaboration between investigators in translational and clinical-related AD research (reflected in indexers and authors' networks). Our approach has relevance for researches in the field, since they can identify relations between different developments which are not otherwise evident. These developments combined with advanced visualization techniques, might aid the discovery of novel interactions between genes and pathways or used as a resource to advance clinical drug development.