Application of bibliometrics and visualization techniques to analyze the global research status and trends of rehabilitation after arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the global research status and trends of rehabilitation after arthroplasty. Methods The Wed of Science database was used to search the publications on rehabilitation after arthroplasty from 1994 to 2018. The included publish items were statistically analyzed by bibliometrics. VOSviewer software was used to analyze the visual transformation of literature coupling (including author coupling, mechanism coupling and country coupling) and co-occurrence analysis. The research status and trends of rehabilitation after arthroplasty in recent years were analyzed and predicted. Results A total of 1 702 studies were included in the present study. The number of literatures increased year by year globally, including 612 in the United States as the top number of studies in the world. The total citation frequency (15 433 times) and H index (61) of the research publications were also the highest in the world. China (79 literatures) ranked 6th in the number of global research publications, with total citation frequency (451 times) and H index (12) ranked 14th. The number of publications published by JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY and ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION on rehabilitation after arthroplasty was the highest. The University of Pittsburgh and the University of Toronto were the biggest contributors to publications on rehabilitation after arthroplasty. The theme of rehabilitation after arthroplasty can be divided into five categories: pain management, functional exercise, management, complications and clinical trials. Hospital was the main research field recently and the orthopedic specialty would become a hot research topic in the future. Conclusion According to the current global trends, rehabilitation study is deepening and the number of publications will increase continuously. The United States is the largest contributor in this area. The current researches focus on the hospital management after arthroplasty. The new type of orthopedic specialty may be the next research hotspot for arthroplasty. Key words: Bibliometrics; Arthroplasty, replacement; Rehabilitation
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 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.171 | 0.173 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".