Citation Classics in Pediatric Orthopaedics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to identify the clinical pediatric orthopaedic articles with at least 100 citations published in all orthopaedic journals and to examine their characteristics. METHODS: All journals dedicated to orthopaedics and its subspecialties were selected from the Journal Citation Report 2001 under the subject category "orthopedics." Articles cited 100 times or more were identified using the database of the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED, 1900 to present). The articles were ranked in a comprehensive list. Two authors independently reviewed the full text of each article and applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria to the list of articles. The 2 lists were then compared. All disagreements were resolved by consensus with input from the senior author. The final list of pediatric orthopaedic articles was then compiled. RESULTS: There were a total of 49 journals under the search category "orthopedics." Five journals were excluded as they were non-English journals. The remaining 44 journals were screened for articles with at least 100 citations. A total of 135 clinical pediatric orthopaedic articles cited at least 100 times were included. The most cited article was cited 692 times. The mean number of citations per article was 159 (95% confidence interval, 145-173). All the articles were published between 1949 and 2001, with 1980 and 1989 producing the most citation classics (34). The majority (90) originated from the United States, followed by the United Kingdom (12) and Canada (11). Scoliosis/kyphosis was the most common topic with 26 papers. The second most common subject was hip disorders (24). Therapeutic studies were the most common study type (71). Ninety-seven papers were assigned a 4 for level of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The list of citation classics in pediatric orthopaedic articles is useful for several reasons. It identifies important contributions to the field of pediatric orthopaedics and their originators; it facilitates the understanding and discourse of modern pediatric orthopaedic history and reveals trends in pediatric orthopaedics.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".