100 top-cited scientific papers in limb prosthetics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has tremendously contributed to the developments in both practical and fundamental aspects of limb prosthetics. These advancements are reflected in scientific articles, particularly in the most cited papers. This article aimed to identify the 100 top-cited articles in the field of limb prosthetics and to investigate their main characteristics. Articles related to the field of limb prosthetics and published in the Web of Knowledge database of the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) from the period of 1980 to 2012. The 100 most cited articles in limb prosthetics were selected based on the citation index report. All types of articles except for proceedings and letters were included in the study. The study design and level of evidence were determined using Sackett's initial rules of evidence. The level of evidence was categorized either as a systematic review or meta-analysis, randomized controlled trial, cohort study, case-control study, case series, expert opinion, or design and development. The top cited articles in prosthetics were published from 1980 to 2012 with a citation range of 11 to 90 times since publication. The mean citation rate was 24.43 (SD 16.7) times. Eighty-four percent of the articles were original publications and were most commonly prospective (76%) and case series studies (67%) that used human subjects (96%) providing level 4 evidence. Among the various fields, rehabilitation (47%), orthopedics (29%), and sport sciences (28%) were the most common fields of study. The study established that studies conducted in North America and were written in English had the highest citations. Top cited articles primarily dealt with lower limb prosthetics, specifically, on transtibial and transradial prosthetic limbs. Majority of the articles were experimental studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.088 | 0.109 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".