Citation analysis of the highest-cited articles on developmental dysplasia of the hip
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to determine the highest-cited articles on developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) and analyze their bibliometric characteristics. We searched the Web of Science (WoS) for articles with the highest number of citations on DDH and recorded their number of citations in WoS, Scopus, and Google Scholar (GS). We ranked and selected the top 100 cited articles. The average number of citations in WoS was 148 (range 66-638). The most-cited article in all databases was Crowe's total hip replacement cohort on DDH. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery American Volume (n = 35) had the most articles in the list, and the United States (n = 46) contributed with the most articles. The University of Bern had the most publications (n = 8). Most studies were therapeutic (n = 45) or diagnostic (n = 29). Hip preservation and arthroplasty investigations have had an increment in citations in recent decades. We provide an historical perspective on research conducted on DDH. A majority of the articles were observational and therapeutic. All databases had good correlation in the number of citations.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it