Global Scientific Outputs of Palliative Care Publications: A Holistic Approach with Bibliometric Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to summarize the scientific outputs of the palliative care studies conducted between 1975 and 2019 through bibliometric analyses, identify the top effective journals, top-cited studies, the collaboration between countries, and trend topics. Materials and Methods: We performed a bibliometric analysis on palliative care. “Palliative care”, “terminal care”, “end-of-life care” and “hospice care” terms were used as the keywords in the title section of articles in Web of Science database. Spearman correlation coefficient was performed for the correlation analysis between the number of publications produced by the countries and economic indicators. Results: There were 22361 publications about palliative care. Of these publications, 10309 were articles. The top three countries that produced more than 100 articles were the USA, the United Kingdom, and Canada. The top three journals that had the highest number of publications were Journal of Palliative Medicine, Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, and Palliative Medicine. There was a positive, highly significant relationship between the number of publications and Gross domestic product (r = 0.709, p <0.001). Conclusion: This study is believed to be a beneficial guide about the global outputs of palliative care for the clinicians and scientists and present new research ideas to the researchers.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.163 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".