ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
Global research landscape versus disease burden in pneumoconiosis diagnosis: a dual-source bibliometric analysis [1999-2025].
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pneumoconiosis, a preventable occupational lung disease caused by prolonged dust inhalation, remains a major global health burden. Traditional diagnosis relying on occupational history and chest imaging is limited by inter-observer variability and poor early-stage sensitivity. Although artificial intelligence (AI) offers promising solutions, the global research landscape and its alignment with epidemiological needs have not been systematically evaluated. To bridge this gap, we conducted a dual-source analysis to quantify the global research output, thematic evolution, and its alignment with regional pneumoconiosis burdens from 1999 to 2025. Methods: Here, we retrieved publications on pneumoconiosis diagnosis from the Web of Science database [1999-2025], including 540 articles based on PRISMA 2020 guidelines, and performed bibliometric analyses using CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and R program. Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2021 data served as an external benchmark for disease burden. Results: Publication output exhibited an S-shaped growth, accelerating after 2015 with deep learning integration. The United States and China dominated the research field, while high-burden regions (Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa) remained peripheral. The field evolved through three phases: conventional radiology, quantitative computed tomography (CT), and AI-enabled systems. Interdisciplinary collaborations among the fields of respiratory medicine, imaging, and computer science intensified. Keyword bursts highlighted deep learning and emerging exposures (e.g., artificial stone silicosis) as current frontiers of research. A persistent geographic mismatch was evident: high-burden countries produced far fewer publications than low-burden counterparts. Conclusions: Pneumoconiosis diagnostics has shifted from manual assessment to AI-powered quantification. Future priorities should include explainable AI (XAI) validation, multimodal data integration, updated criteria for novel dust exposures, and equitable global collaboration to bridge research-burden disparities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.