RT Journal Article SR Electronic T1 Science map of Cochrane systematic reviews receiving the most altmetric attention: network visualization and machine learning perspective JF medRxiv FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press SP 19006817 DO 10.1101/19006817 A1 Jafar Kolahi A1 Saber Khazaei A1 Elham Bidram A1 Roya Kelishadi YR 2019 UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2019/10/03/19006817.abstract AB Introduction We aim to visualize and analyze the science map of Cochrane systematic reviews with the high altmetric attention scores.Methods On 10 May 2019, altmetric data of Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews obtained from Altmetric database (Altmetric LLP, London, UK). Bibliometric data of top 5% Cochrane systematic reviews further extracted from Web of Science. keyword co-occurrence, co-authorship and co-citation network visualization were then employed using VOSviewer software. Decision tree and random forest model were used to analyze citations pattern.Results 12016 Cochrane systematic reviews with Altmetric attention are found (total mentions=259,968). Twitter was the most popular altmetric resource among these articles. Consequently, the top 5% (607 articles, mean altmetric score= 171.2, Confidence Level (CL) 95%= 14.4, mean citations= 42.1, CL 95%= 1.3) with the highest Altmetric score are included in the study. Keyword co-occurrence network visualization showed female, adult and child as the most accurate keywords respectively. At author level, Helen V Worthington had the greatest impact on the network. At organization and country levels, University of Oxford and U.K had the greatest impact on the network in turn. Co-citation network analysis showed that Lancet and Cochrane database of systematic reviews had the most influence on the network. However, altmetric score do not correlate with citations (r=0.15) (Figure 7), it does correlate with policy document mentions (r=0.61). Results of decision tree and random forest model (a machine learning algorithm) confirmed importance of policy document mentions.Discussion Despite popularity of Cochrane systematic reviews in Twittersphere, disappointingly, they rarely shared and discussed in newly emerging academic tools (e.g. F1000 prime, Publons and PubPeer). Overall, Wikipedia mentions were low among Cochrane systematic reviews, considering the established partnership between Wikipedia and Cochrane collaboration. Newly emerging and groundbreaking concepts, e.g. genomic medicine, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence not that admired among hot topics.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialN/AFunding StatementThis study was not financially supported by any institution or commercial sources and the authors declare that they have no competing interest.Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.Not ApplicableAny clinical trials involved have been registered with an ICMJE-approved registry such as ClinicalTrials.gov and the trial ID is included in the manuscript.Not ApplicableI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant Equator, ICMJE or other checklist(s) as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData is available. Please contact with Kolahi_jafar@yahoo.com