IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0143573.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identification of the Key Fields and Their Key Technical Points of Oncology by Patent Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Ting Zhang
  • Juan Chen
  • Xiaofeng Jia

Abstract

Background: This paper aims to identify the key fields and their key technical points of oncology by patent analysis. Methodology/Principal Findings: Patents of oncology applied from 2006 to 2012 were searched in the Thomson Innovation database. The key fields and their key technical points were determined by analyzing the Derwent Classification (DC) and the International Patent Classification (IPC), respectively. Patent applications in the top ten DC occupied 80% of all the patent applications of oncology, which were the ten fields of oncology to be analyzed. The number of patent applications in these ten fields of oncology was standardized based on patent applications of oncology from 2006 to 2012. For each field, standardization was conducted separately for each of the seven years (2006–2012) and the mean of the seven standardized values was calculated to reflect the relative amount of patent applications in that field; meanwhile, regression analysis using time (year) and the standardized values of patent applications in seven years (2006–2012) was conducted so as to evaluate the trend of patent applications in each field. Two-dimensional quadrant analysis, together with the professional knowledge of oncology, was taken into consideration in determining the key fields of oncology. The fields located in the quadrant with high relative amount or increasing trend of patent applications are identified as key ones. By using the same method, the key technical points in each key field were identified. Altogether 116,820 patents of oncology applied from 2006 to 2012 were retrieved, and four key fields with twenty-nine key technical points were identified, including “natural products and polymers” with nine key technical points, “fermentation industry” with twelve ones, “electrical medical equipment” with four ones, and “diagnosis, surgery” with four ones. Conclusions/Significance: The results of this study could provide guidance on the development direction of oncology, and also help researchers broaden innovative ideas and discover new technological opportunities.

Suggested Citation

  • Ting Zhang & Juan Chen & Xiaofeng Jia, 2015. "Identification of the Key Fields and Their Key Technical Points of Oncology by Patent Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-18, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0143573
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0143573
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0143573
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0143573&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0143573?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Janghyeok Yoon & Hyunseok Park & Kwangsoo Kim, 2013. "Identifying technological competition trends for R&D planning using dynamic patent maps: SAO-based content analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 313-331, January.
    2. Xiao Zhou & Yi Zhang & Alan L. Porter & Ying Guo & Donghua Zhu, 2014. "A patent analysis method to trace technology evolutionary pathways," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(3), pages 705-721, September.
    3. Christian Schloegl & Juan Gorraiz, 2010. "Comparison of citation and usage indicators: the case of oncology journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(3), pages 567-580, March.
    4. Qi Yu & Hongfang Shao & Zhiguang Duan, 2011. "Research groups of oncology co-authorship network in China," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(2), pages 553-567, November.
    5. Jan M. Gerken & Martin G. Moehrle, 2012. "A new instrument for technology monitoring: novelty in patents measured by semantic patent analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 645-670, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kyuwoong Kim & Kyeongmin Park & Sungjoo Lee, 2019. "Investigating technology opportunities: the use of SAOx analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 45-70, January.
    2. Liu, Zhenfeng & Feng, Jian & Uden, Lorna, 2023. "Technology opportunity analysis using hierarchical semantic networks and dual link prediction," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    3. An, Jaehyeong & Kim, Kyuwoong & Mortara, Letizia & Lee, Sungjoo, 2018. "Deriving technology intelligence from patents: Preposition-based semantic analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 217-236.
    4. Farshad Madani, 2015. "‘Technology Mining’ bibliometrics analysis: applying network analysis and cluster analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(1), pages 323-335, October.
    5. Jose M. Vicente-Gomila & Anna Palli & Begoña Calle & Miguel A. Artacho & Sara Jimenez, 2017. "Discovering shifts in competitive strategies in probiotics, accelerated with TechMining," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1907-1923, June.
    6. Changyong Lee & Gyumin Lee, 2019. "Technology opportunity analysis based on recombinant search: patent landscape analysis for idea generation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 603-632, November.
    7. Hyunseok Park & Janghyeok Yoon & Kwangsoo Kim, 2013. "Identification and evaluation of corporations for merger and acquisition strategies using patent information and text mining," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(3), pages 883-909, December.
    8. Yoon, Janghyeok & Park, Hyunseok & Seo, Wonchul & Lee, Jae-Min & Coh, Byoung-youl & Kim, Jonghwa, 2015. "Technology opportunity discovery (TOD) from existing technologies and products: A function-based TOD framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 153-167.
    9. Zhang, Yi & Shang, Lining & Huang, Lu & Porter, Alan L. & Zhang, Guangquan & Lu, Jie & Zhu, Donghua, 2016. "A hybrid similarity measure method for patent portfolio analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1108-1130.
    10. Xuan Shi & Lingfei Cai & Hongfang Song, 2019. "Discovering Potential Technology Opportunities for Fuel Cell Vehicle Firms: A Multi-Level Patent Portfolio-Based Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-22, November.
    11. Aharonson, Barak S. & Schilling, Melissa A., 2016. "Mapping the technological landscape: Measuring technology distance, technological footprints, and technology evolution," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 81-96.
    12. Núria Bautista-Puig & Daniela De Filippo & Elba Mauleón & Elías Sanz-Casado, 2019. "Scientific Landscape of Citizen Science Publications: Dynamics, Content and Presence in Social Media," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-22, February.
    13. Zhang, Yi & Huang, Ying & Porter, Alan L. & Zhang, Guangquan & Lu, Jie, 2019. "Discovering and forecasting interactions in big data research: A learning-enhanced bibliometric study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 795-807.
    14. Ajiferuke, Isola & Famoye, Felix, 2015. "Modelling count response variables in informetric studies: Comparison among count, linear, and lognormal regression models," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 499-513.
    15. Xuefeng Wang & Huichao Ren & Yun Chen & Yuqin Liu & Yali Qiao & Ying Huang, 2019. "Measuring patent similarity with SAO semantic analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 1-23, October.
    16. Barbara McGillivray & Mathias Astell, 2019. "The relationship between usage and citations in an open access mega-journal," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 817-838, November.
    17. Walters, William H., 2017. "Do subjective journal ratings represent whole journals or typical articles? Unweighted or weighted citation impact?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 730-744.
    18. Daniela De Filippo & Fernanda Morillo & Borja González-Albo, 2023. "Measuring the Impact and Influence of Scientific Activity in the Humanities and Social Sciences," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, June.
    19. Niemann, Helen & Moehrle, Martin G. & Frischkorn, Jonas, 2017. "Use of a new patent text-mining and visualization method for identifying patenting patterns over time: Concept, method and test application," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 210-220.
    20. Li, Xin & Xie, Qianqian & Jiang, Jiaojiao & Zhou, Yuan & Huang, Lucheng, 2019. "Identifying and monitoring the development trends of emerging technologies using patent analysis and Twitter data mining: The case of perovskite solar cell technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 687-705.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0143573. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.