Global research trends in clinical studies of ginseng: a bibliometric and text-as-data analysis
4 affiliations
- 1KM Convergence Research Division, Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine, Daejeon, South Korea; Corresponding author. KM Convergence Research Division, Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine, 1672 Yuseong-daero, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 34054, South Korea.
- 2Centre for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China
- 3Centre for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China; Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, Sichuan, China
- 4KM Science Research Division, Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine, Daejeon, South Korea
Abstract
Clinical research on ginseng has expanded considerably, yet most bibliometric syntheses still rely on publication counts and co-occurrence maps. We mapped research on Panax ginseng and demonstrated a text-as-data and network pipeline. English-language publications indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded (2004–2026) were retrieved using ginseng- and clinical-study-related terms and screened by two reviewers. CiteSpace and R-based clustering and citation-burst analyses were supplemented with topic modelling, word embeddings, a cross-validated study-type classifier, social-network analysis, negative-binomial citation modelling, Gini concentration, and disease–intervention and pathway mapping. Of 1386 records, 270 met inclusion criteria. Annual publications increased from six in 2004 to 26 in 2021, accumulating 6990 citations (h-index 44). South Korea produced 53.7% of publications, whereas Australia had the highest network centrality; international co-authorship remained low (24.4%) and did not increase. Seventeen CiteSpace clusters and eight validated topics indicated a shift from herb–drug-interaction safety toward supplementation, type 2 diabetes, cognition, and sexual or hormonal health. The author-keyword network showed a small-world structure centered on the intervention rather than a disease. Citations were concentrated (Gini 0.562), and only team size predicted citation rate (IRR 1.06). The classifier achieved 89.6% accuracy, while ginsenosides, NF-κB/inflammation, and insulin/AMPK were the molecular terms most frequently co-mentioned in mechanism-focused abstracts. Randomized designs comprised 190 studies (70.4%), with 10 observational (3.7%) and 70 (25.9%) other designs (uncontrolled, single-arm, pharmacokinetic, or mechanistic sub-studies). Clinical ginseng research is increasingly disease-specific but remains geographically concentrated, fragmented, and dependent on short-term trials. This pipeline quantifies uncertainty, reveals patterns beyond counts, and highlights the need for international collaboration, standardized ginsenoside reporting, and long-term cohorts.
Related
- Global research trends on RF-EMR and reproductive health: Bibliometric insights and mechanistic review.
- Global research trends in m⁶A demethylases and cancer: a bibliometric and visualization analysis.
- Advances in Research on Panax Ginseng-Derived EV-like Particles
- Research progress and trends of gut microbiota and lung injury: a bibliometric and visualization analysis based on two databases (2015–2026)
- Research trends and emerging topics in gut microbiota-derived metabolites and diabetic kidney disease: a multi-database bibliometric analysis (2014–2025)
BibTeX
@article{lee2026global,
title = {{Global research trends in clinical studies of ginseng: a bibliometric and text-as-data analysis}},
author = {Hye Won Lee and Xia Li and Jianping Liu and Changsup Yang and Myeong Soo Lee},
journal = {Journal of Ginseng Research},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1016/j.jgr.2026.101164},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgr.2026.101164},
note = {CC BY-NC-ND},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Global research trends in clinical studies of ginseng: a bibliometric and text-as-data analysis
AU - Hye Won Lee
AU - Xia Li
AU - Jianping Liu
AU - Changsup Yang
AU - Myeong Soo Lee
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/01
JO - Journal of Ginseng Research
DO - 10.1016/j.jgr.2026.101164
UR - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgr.2026.101164
AB - Clinical research on ginseng has expanded considerably, yet most bibliometric syntheses still rely on publication counts and co-occurrence maps. We mapped research on Panax ginseng and demonstrated a text-as-data and network pipeline. English-language publications indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded (2004–2026) were retrieved using ginseng- and clinical-study-related terms and screened by two reviewers. CiteSpace and R-based clustering and citation-burst analyses were supplemented with topic modelling, word embeddings, a cross-validated study-type classifier, social-network analysis, negative-binomial citation modelling, Gini concentration, and disease–intervention and pathway mapping. Of 1386 records, 270 met inclusion criteria. Annual publications increased from six in 2004 to 26 in 2021, accumulating 6990 citations (h-index 44). South Korea produced 53.7% of publications, whereas Australia had the highest network centrality; international co-authorship remained low (24.4%) and did not increase. Seventeen CiteSpace clusters and eight validated topics indicated a shift from herb–drug-interaction safety toward supplementation, type 2 diabetes, cognition, and sexual or hormonal health. The author-keyword network showed a small-world structure centered on the intervention rather than a disease. Citations were concentrated (Gini 0.562), and only team size predicted citation rate (IRR 1.06). The classifier achieved 89.6% accuracy, while ginsenosides, NF-κB/inflammation, and insulin/AMPK were the molecular terms most frequently co-mentioned in mechanism-focused abstracts. Randomized designs comprised 190 studies (70.4%), with 10 observational (3.7%) and 70 (25.9%) other designs (uncontrolled, single-arm, pharmacokinetic, or mechanistic sub-studies). Clinical ginseng research is increasingly disease-specific but remains geographically concentrated, fragmented, and dependent on short-term trials. This pipeline quantifies uncertainty, reveals patterns beyond counts, and highlights the need for international collaboration, standardized ginsenoside reporting, and long-term cohorts.
SN - 1226-8453
SN - 2093-4947
ER -