mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Measuring the Novelty of Biomedical Papers Using the Latent Distances between Knowledge Units

arXiv 2609.05175 ↗First posted 4 Sep 2026cs.DL cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Measuring the novelty of scientific papers is a central concern in research evaluation and scientometrics. From a recombination perspective, prior studies have largely focused on the co-occurrence of knowledge units to assess the novelty of scientific papers. However, these studies often overlook other relationships between knowledge units. This narrow view may result in inaccurate or incomplete evaluations of novelty for scientific papers. To fill this gap, this study introduces a comprehensive novelty measurement that incorporates three types of relationships between knowledge units: network, semantic, and hierarchical. These relationships are used to quantify the latent distances among knowledge units. Using a dataset of 142,036 articles published in PLoS ONE and a validation dataset from the H1 Connect platform, our results demonstrate that (1) each relationship type captures distinct latent distances between MeSH terms; (2) compared to the widely used indicators proposed by Uzzi et al. (2013), our measures show stronger alignment with peer judgements; and (3) combining all three distance metrics yields more effective identification of novel papers than using any single perspective alone.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 8 of its 69 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Sep 2026.

Builds on

8 of 69 references.

References · 8

  1. 2015LINE: Large-scale Information Network Embeddingcited by 582
  2. 2020Building a PubMed knowledge graphcited by 38
  3. 2025A review on the novelty measurements of academic paperscited by 12
  4. 2019Do we measure novelty when we analyze unusual combinations of cited references? A validation study of bibliometric novelty indicators based on F1000Prime datacited by 7
  5. 2019Analyzing Linguistic Complexity and Scientific Impactcited by 6
  6. 2020Pandemics are catalysts of scientific novelty: Evidence from COVID-19cited by 6
  7. 2024Evaluating the quality of published medical research with ChatGPTcited by 3
  8. 2026Do more heads imply better performance? An empirical study of team thought leaders' impact on scientific team performancecited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.