MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3169626424 · doi:10.3389/fcvm.2021.672913

Cardiac Rehabilitation: A Bibliometric Review From 2001 to 2020

2021· review· en· W3169626424 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubject (documents)ModalitiesRehabilitationDiseaseDistribution (mathematics)Web of scienceBibliometricsPublic healthMedicineMedical educationGerontologyLibrary scienceSocial scienceComputer scienceSociologyPathologyPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a serious threat to global public health due to its high prevalence and disability rate. Meanwhile, cardiac rehabilitation (CR) has attracted increasing attention for its positive effects on the cardiovascular system. There is overwhelming evidence that CR for patients with CVD is effective in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. To learn more about the development of CR, 5,567 papers about CR and related research were retrieved in the Web of Science Core Collection from 2001 to 2020. Then, these publications were scientometrically analyzed based on CiteSpace in terms of spatiotemporal distribution, author distribution, subject categories, topic distribution, and references. The results can be elaborated from three aspects. Firstly, the number of annual publications related to CR has increased year by year in general over the past two decades. Secondly, a co-occurrence analysis of the output countries and authors shows that a few developed countries such as the United States, Canada, and the UK are the most active in carrying out CR and where regional academic communities represented by Sherry Grace and Ross Arena were formed. Thirdly, an analysis of the subject categories and topic distribution of the papers reveals that CR is a typical interdiscipline with a wide range of disciplines involved, including clinical medicine, basic medicine, public health management, and sports science. The research topics cover the participants and implementers, components, and the objectives and requirements of CR. The current research hotspots are the three core modalities of CR, namely patient education, exercise training and mental support, as well as mobile health (mHealth) dependent on computer science. In conclusion, this work has provided some useful information for acquiring knowledge about CR, including identifying potential collaborators for researchers interested in CR, and discovering research trends and hot topics in CR, which can offer some guidance for more extensive and in-depth CR-related studies in the future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.006
Bibliometrics0.0160.074
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it