{"title":"改进肾脏医学机器学习文献计量学研究中的检索策略。","authors":"Hao-Han Rao, Feng Guo, Jie Tian","doi":"10.1007/s11255-024-04335-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper evaluated the bibliometric study by Li et al. (Int Urol Nephrol, 2024) on machine learning in renal medicine. Although the study claims to summarize the forefront trends and hotspots in this field, several key issues require further clarification to effectively guide future research. Firstly, while the authors used the \"*\" wildcard to broaden the search scope, they screened articles only by document type and language, without specific filtering based on titles, abstracts, or full texts. This approach may have led to the inclusion of irrelevant studies, potentially compromising analytical accuracy. Secondly, the authors conducted the search using the Topic (TS) field, which may include articles not closely related to the intended topic. We recommend using Title (TI), Abstract (AB), and Author Keywords (AK) as filtering criteria in future studies to improve search precision. Finally, in the keyword co-occurrence analysis, the authors did not merge synonyms, leading to distortions in keyword frequency rankings; for example, \"machine learning\" and \"machine learning (ML)\" were treated as separate terms. We believe that synonym merging would enhance the accuracy of keyword analysis. Overall, the search strategy by Li et al. demonstrates issues such as imprecise scope and lack of synonym integration. To ensure the comprehensiveness and accuracy of future research, we suggest refining the search strategy, employing precise screening steps, and integrating synonyms to improve the quality of bibliometric studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":14454,"journal":{"name":"International Urology and Nephrology","volume":" ","pages":"1987-1988"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving search strategies in bibliometric studies on machine learning in renal medicine.\",\"authors\":\"Hao-Han Rao, Feng Guo, Jie Tian\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11255-024-04335-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This paper evaluated the bibliometric study by Li et al. (Int Urol Nephrol, 2024) on machine learning in renal medicine. Although the study claims to summarize the forefront trends and hotspots in this field, several key issues require further clarification to effectively guide future research. Firstly, while the authors used the \\\"*\\\" wildcard to broaden the search scope, they screened articles only by document type and language, without specific filtering based on titles, abstracts, or full texts. This approach may have led to the inclusion of irrelevant studies, potentially compromising analytical accuracy. Secondly, the authors conducted the search using the Topic (TS) field, which may include articles not closely related to the intended topic. We recommend using Title (TI), Abstract (AB), and Author Keywords (AK) as filtering criteria in future studies to improve search precision. Finally, in the keyword co-occurrence analysis, the authors did not merge synonyms, leading to distortions in keyword frequency rankings; for example, \\\"machine learning\\\" and \\\"machine learning (ML)\\\" were treated as separate terms. We believe that synonym merging would enhance the accuracy of keyword analysis. Overall, the search strategy by Li et al. demonstrates issues such as imprecise scope and lack of synonym integration. To ensure the comprehensiveness and accuracy of future research, we suggest refining the search strategy, employing precise screening steps, and integrating synonyms to improve the quality of bibliometric studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14454,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Urology and Nephrology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1987-1988\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Urology and Nephrology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-024-04335-8\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Urology and Nephrology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-024-04335-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本文评价了Li et al. (Int urrol Nephrol, 2024)关于肾脏医学机器学习的文献计量学研究。虽然本研究声称总结了该领域的前沿趋势和热点,但有几个关键问题需要进一步澄清,以有效指导未来的研究。首先,虽然作者使用“*”通配符来扩大搜索范围,但他们只根据文档类型和语言筛选文章,而没有根据标题、摘要或全文进行具体筛选。这种方法可能会导致纳入不相关的研究,潜在地损害分析的准确性。其次,作者使用Topic (TS)字段进行搜索,其中可能包括与预期主题不密切相关的文章。我们建议在未来的研究中使用标题(TI)、摘要(AB)和作者关键词(AK)作为过滤标准,以提高搜索精度。最后,在关键词共现分析中,作者没有合并同义词,导致关键词频次排名失真;例如,“机器学习”和“机器学习(ML)”被视为单独的术语。我们认为同义词合并可以提高关键词分析的准确性。总的来说,Li等人的搜索策略显示了诸如范围不精确和缺乏同义词集成等问题。为了确保未来研究的全面性和准确性,我们建议改进检索策略,采用精确的筛选步骤,并整合同义词以提高文献计量学研究的质量。
Improving search strategies in bibliometric studies on machine learning in renal medicine.
This paper evaluated the bibliometric study by Li et al. (Int Urol Nephrol, 2024) on machine learning in renal medicine. Although the study claims to summarize the forefront trends and hotspots in this field, several key issues require further clarification to effectively guide future research. Firstly, while the authors used the "*" wildcard to broaden the search scope, they screened articles only by document type and language, without specific filtering based on titles, abstracts, or full texts. This approach may have led to the inclusion of irrelevant studies, potentially compromising analytical accuracy. Secondly, the authors conducted the search using the Topic (TS) field, which may include articles not closely related to the intended topic. We recommend using Title (TI), Abstract (AB), and Author Keywords (AK) as filtering criteria in future studies to improve search precision. Finally, in the keyword co-occurrence analysis, the authors did not merge synonyms, leading to distortions in keyword frequency rankings; for example, "machine learning" and "machine learning (ML)" were treated as separate terms. We believe that synonym merging would enhance the accuracy of keyword analysis. Overall, the search strategy by Li et al. demonstrates issues such as imprecise scope and lack of synonym integration. To ensure the comprehensiveness and accuracy of future research, we suggest refining the search strategy, employing precise screening steps, and integrating synonyms to improve the quality of bibliometric studies.
期刊介绍:
International Urology and Nephrology publishes original papers on a broad range of topics in urology, nephrology and andrology. The journal integrates papers originating from clinical practice.