Global research trends in clinical studies of ginseng: a bibliometric and text-as-data analysis
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 1,386 records, 270 met inclusion criteria. Annual publications increased from six in 2004 to 26 in 2021, accumulating 6,990 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.