Trends, gaps, and future directions of research in cervical remodeling during pregnancy: a bibliometric analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The cervix undergoes a dynamic remodeling process throughout pregnancy. Appropriate timing of cervical remodeling is essential in maintaining the fetus inside the uterus and ensuring cervical dilatation for safe delivery of the fetus at term. This study aims to determine the characteristics and trends of published articles in the field of cervical remodeling during pregnancy through a bibliometric analysis.Materials and methods A systematic review of the literature on cervical remodeling during pregnancy was performed on using the Scopus database from inception to 2020. The following information was obtained for each article: authors, year of publication, title, journal, institution, country, title, keywords, citation frequency, and relative citation ratio. The visualization of collaboration networks of countries and keywords related to cervical remodeling during pregnancy was conducted using VOSviewer software.Results A total of 1979 bibliographic records were obtained from Scopus database. The number of publications increased in the 1980s and peaked in 2010. A total of 80 countries produced research in cervical remodeling during pregnancy. The USA contributed the greatest number of publications (n= 541), total citations (n= 11,971), and number of international collaborations (n= 28 countries). The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Obstetrics and Gynecology, and BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology are the top three contributors in this field in terms of number of publications and total citations. The Karolinska Institutet produced the greatest number of publications while UT Southwestern Medical Center was the most cited institution in this field. The topics of the top cited articles were studies regarding the role of collagen degradation in cervical remodeling during pregnancy; dynamics, anatomy, and physiology of cervical remodeling; and the use of misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction.Conclusions Our bibliometric analysis shows the trends and development, scientific impact, and collaboration in the field of cervical remodeling research. These results show the important discoveries in the past and provided new avenues for scientific and clinical investigations in the field.
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: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
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 | 0.019 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.117 | 0.181 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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, 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".