The All of Us dataset in scientific research: a bibliometric study of its utilization through 2024
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2026.2346Keywords:
All of Us, bibliometric analysis, publication trend, collaboration network, VOSviewer, Biblioshiny, dataset utilization, policy complianceAbstract
Objective: This study presents a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of research publications utilizing the All of Us Research Program dataset to characterize publication trends, collaboration networks, key research topics, and compliance with All of Us publication and presentation policies through December 2024.
Methods: A total of 561 publication titles were collected from the All of Us Publications Directory. Titles were then searched across Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and PubMed, with WoS (475 publications identified) selected as the primary source for analysis. Productivity metrics, including publication growth, journal distribution, author productivity, and word frequency, were analyzed using Biblioshiny. Co-authorship and keyword co-occurrence networks were visualized in VOSviewer to reveal collaboration structures and emerging research themes.
Results: Among the 475 analyzed publications, 2,803 authors were identified across 211 journals. The annual number of All of Us publications increased by 82.45% from 2015 to 2024. Major research themes included epidemiology, chronic conditions, genomics, and health disparities, with dermatology emerging as a particularly active area. Network analysis revealed strong intra-institutional ties and some cross-institutional collaborations, primarily among R1 universities.
Conclusions: This bibliometric study demonstrates a rapid rise in scholarly activity leveraging the All of Us dataset, characterized by concentrated author and institutional engagement. These findings highlight both the growing impact of the All of Us dataset and opportunities to foster broader collaborations and diversify participation across the research community.
References
1. All of Us Research Program [Internet]. [cited 2025 July 23]. Available from: https://allofus.nih.gov/.
2. Data Snapshots – All of Us Research Hub [Internet]. [cited 2025 July 23]. Available from: https://www.researchallofus.org/data-tools/data-snapshots/.
3. All of Us Public Data Browser [Internet]. [cited 2025 July 23]. Available from: https://databrowser.researchallofus.org/.
4. Data Access Tiers – All of Us Research Hub [Internet]. [cited 2025 July 23]. Available from: https://www.researchallofus.org/data-tools/data-access/.
5. Researcher Workbench – All of Us Research Hub [Internet]. [cited 2025 July 23]. Available from: https://www.researchallofus.org/data-tools/workbench/.
6. Research Project Directory – All of Us Research Hub [Internet]. [cited 2025 July 23]. Available from: https://www.researchallofus.org/research-project-directory/.
7. Publications – All of Us Research Hub [Internet]. [cited 2025 July 23]. Available from: https://www.researchallofus.org/publications/.
8. Bornmann L, Haunschild R, Hug SE. Visualizing the context of citations referencing papers published by Eugene Garfield: a new type of keyword co-occurrence analysis. Scientometrics. 2018 Feb 1;114(2):427–37.
9. Abramo G, D’Angelo CA, Di Costa F. National research assessment exercises: a comparison of peer review and bibliometrics rankings. Scientometrics. 2011 Dec 1;89(3):929–41.
10. Bamel S, Dipika, Singh S. Mapping the research landscape of business ethics, corporate governance, and corporate social responsibility: A bibliometric and citation analysis. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship. 2024 Jan 2;29(1):31–57.
11. Chang YW, Li IJ. Influence of Dervin’s sensemaking methodology determined through citation context analysis, content analysis and bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation. 2024 Jan 5;80(4):749–72.
12. Leng RI. Diversity in citations to a single study: A citation context network analysis of how evidence from a prospective cohort study was cited. Quantitative Science Studies. 2021 Dec 1;2(4):1216–45.
13. Bornmann L, Wray KB, Haunschild R. Citation concept analysis (CCA): a new form of citation analysis revealing the usefulness of concepts for other researchers illustrated by exemplary case studies including classic books by Thomas S. Kuhn and Karl R. Popper. Scientometrics. 2020 Feb 1;122(2):1051–74.
14. Halevi G, Moed HF. The thematic and conceptual flow of disciplinary research: A citation context analysis of the journal of informetrics, 2007. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2013;64(9):1903–13.
15. Suominen H, Kelly L, Goeuriot L. Scholarly Influence of the Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum eHealth Initiative: Review and Bibliometric Study of the 2012 to 2017 Outcomes. JMIR Res Protoc. 2018 July 27;7(7):e10961.
16. Wang S, Mao J, Lu K, Cao Y, Li G. Understanding interdisciplinary knowledge integration through citance analysis: A case study on eHealth. Journal of Informetrics. 2021 Nov 1;15(4):101214.
17. Su C, Peng C, Agbodza E, Bai HX, Huang Y, Karakousis G, Zhang PJ, Zhang Z. Publication trend, resource utilization, and impact of the US National Cancer Database: A systematic review. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Mar;97(9):e9823.
18. Fan WM, Jeng W, Tang MC. Using data citation to define a knowledge domain: A case study of the Add-Health dataset. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2023;74(1):81–98.
19. Belter CW. Measuring the Value of Research Data: A Citation Analysis of Oceanographic Data Sets. PLoS One. 2014 Mar 26;9(3):e92590.
20. Khodyakov D, Bromley E, Evans SK, Sieck K. Best Practices for Participant and Stakeholder Engagement in the All of Us Research Program [Internet]. 2018 Aug [cited 2025 July 30]. Available from: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2578.html.
21. Cronin RM, Feng X, Able A, Sutherland S, Givens B, Johnston R, Depry C, Blanc KWL, Caro O, Mapes B, Denny J, Couper MP, Chen Q, Das IP. Improving follow-up survey completion rates through pilot interventions in the All of Us Research Program: Results from a non-randomized intervention study. PLOS ONE. 2024 Oct 15;19(10):e0308995.
22. Ramirez AH, Sulieman L, Schlueter DJ, Halvorson A, Qian J, Ratsimbazafy F, Loperena R, Mayo K, Basford M, Deflaux N, Muthuraman KN, Natarajan K, Kho A, Xu H, Wilkins C, Anton-Culver H, Boerwinkle E, Cicek M, Clark CR, Cohn E, Ohno-Machado L, Schully SD, Ahmedani BK, Argos M, Cronin RM, O’Donnell C, Fouad M, Goldstein DB, Greenland P, Hebbring SJ, Karlson EW, Khatri P, Korf B, Smoller JW, Sodeke S, Wilbanks J, Hentges J, Mockrin S, Lunt C, Devaney SA, Gebo K, Denny JC, Carroll RJ, Glazer D, Harris PA, Hripcsak G, Philippakis A, Roden DM, Ahmedani B, Cole Johnson CD, Ahsan H, Antoine-LaVigne D, Singleton G, Anton-Culver H, Topol E, Baca-Motes K, Steinhubl S, Wade J, Begale M, Jain P, Sutherland S, Lewis B, Korf B, Behringer M, Gharavi AG, Goldstein DB, Hripcsak G, Bier L, Boerwinkle E, Brilliant MH, Murali N, Hebbring SJ, Farrar-Edwards D, Burnside E, Drezner MK, Taylor A, Channamsetty V, Montalvo W, Sharma Y, Chinea C, Jenks N, Cicek M, Thibodeau S, Holmes BW, Schlueter E, Collier E, Winkler J, Corcoran J, D’Addezio N, Daviglus M, Winn R, Wilkins C, Roden D, Denny J, Doheny K, Nickerson D, Eichler E, Jarvik G, Funk G, Philippakis A, Rehm H, Lennon N, Kathiresan S, Gabriel S, Gibbs R, Gil Rico EM, Glazer D, Grand J, Greenland P, Harris P, Shenkman E, Hogan WR, Igho-Pemu P, Pollan C, Jorge M, Okun S, Karlson EW, Smoller J, Murphy SN, Ross ME, Kaushal R, Winford E, Wallace F, Khatri P, Kheterpal V, Ojo A, Moreno FA, Kron I, Peterson R, Menon U, Lattimore PW, Leviner N, Obedin-Maliver J, Lunn M, Malik-Gagnon L, Mangravite L, Marallo A, Marroquin O, Visweswaran S, Reis S, Marshall G, McGovern P, Mignucci D, Moore J, Munoz F, Talavera G, O’Connor GT, O’Donnell C, Ohno-Machado L, Orr G, Randal F, Theodorou AA, Reiman E, Roxas-Murray M, Stark L, Tepp R, Zhou A, Topper S, Trousdale R, Tsao P, Weidman L, Weiss ST, Wellis D, Whittle J, Wilson A, Zuchner S, Zwick ME. The All of Us Research Program: Data quality, utility, and diversity. Patterns. 2022 Aug 12;3(8):100570.
23. Dahlquist JM, Nelson SC, Fullerton SM. Cloud-based biomedical data storage and analysis for genomic research: Landscape analysis of data governance in emerging NIH-supported platforms. HGGADVANCE [Internet]. 2023 July 13 [cited 2025 July 30];4(3). Available from: https://www.cell.com/hgg-advances/abstract/S2666-2477(23)00028-3.
24. Richardson-Heron D, Cantor K. Envisioning Future Research and Clinical Practice with a Bioethics Lens: A Word for the Next Generation of Researchers (All of Us Research Program, Activism, and Policy Implications). Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved. 2019;30(5):36–42.
25. Zayas-Cabán T, Abernethy AP, Brennan PF, Devaney S, Kerlavage AR, Ramoni R, White PJ. Leveraging the health information technology infrastructure to advance federal research priorities. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020 Apr 1;27(4):647–51.
26. Dutka T, Faust EJ, Gallagher CS, Hyams T, Kozlowski E, Landis E, Lee M, Liou GF, Litwin TR, Lunt C, Mian SH, Musick A, Park N, Patten T, Sanchez J, Schully SD, Shyr C, Ginsburg GS. All of Us Research Program year in review: 2024. The American Journal of Human Genetics. 2025 Sept 4;112(9):1983–7.
27. Publication and Presentation Policy – All of Us Research Hub [Internet]. [cited 2025 Mar 6]. Available from: https://support.researchallofus.org/hc/en-us/articles/22344017910804-All-of-Us-Researcher-Publication-Presentation-and-Poster-Checklist28.
28. Wang J. Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation. Scientometrics. 2013 Mar 1;94(3):851–72.
29. All of Us Publications and Articles Catalog [Internet]. [cited 2025 July 23]. Available from: https://redcap.pmi-ops.org/surveys/index.php?__report=H9JRHMAELACWH37H.
30. FAQ [Internet]. Bibliometrix. [cited 2025 Mar 6]. Available from: https://www.bibliometrix.org/home/index.php/faq.
31. Visser M, van Eck NJ, Waltman L. Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. Quantitative Science Studies. 2021 Apr 8;2(1):20–41.
32. Aria M, Cuccurullo C. bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics. 2017 Nov 1;11(4):959–75.
33. van Eck NJ, Waltman L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics. 2010 Aug 1;84(2):523–38.
34. OpenRefine [Internet]. [cited 2025 Mar 6]. Available from: https://openrefine.org/.
35. All of Us Publication and Presentation Reporting Form [Internet]. [cited 2025 Oct 15]. Available from: https://redcap.pmi-ops.org/surveys/?s=MKYL8MRD4N.
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Yuqi He, Abrielle
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
