Pressure ulcers in patients with diabetes: a bibliometrics analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers (PU) refer to local tissue ulceration and necrosis caused by long-term compression and friction brought on by tissue ischemia and hypoxia. Diabetic wounds do not easily heal, and once a pressure ulceration occurs, it is difficult to deal with. The purpose of this study was to analyze the current research status of PUs in diabetic patients. METHODS: The Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E) database was searched with terms of "Pressure Ulcer" and "Diabetes". Citespace software was used to analyze the annual distribution of the number of target documents and the distribution of countries, institutions, journals, authors, and keywords used in these works. RESULTS: In all, 1271 documents were retrieved, with a total citation frequency of 47,081, and an h-index of 101. The top 5 countries in terms of the number of publications were the United States, the United Kingdom, China, Australia, and the Netherlands; the top 5 countries in centrality were the Netherlands, the United States, Canada, Japan, and France. The institutions with the greatest number of publications were the University of Amsterdam, Cardiff University, The University of Washington, and the University of Manchester. The institutions with the highest centrality were the University of Amsterdam, the University of Groningen, the University of Washington, the University of Adelaide, Baylor College of Medicine, and Queensland University of Technology. The authors with a highest number of publications were Bus SA, Apelqvist J, and the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot, and Hinchliffe RJ. Only 2 authors had a centrality score above 0.01. Journals such as Diabetes Metabolism Research and Reviews, Diabetes Care, and Journal of Wound Care showed considerable influence in this field. Keyword analysis indicated that the use of keywords in this field is not uniform, and the focus of research on PUs in diabetic patients lies the risk and management of foot ulcers. CONCLUSIONS: There are few studies concerning PUs in patients with diabetes and little collaboration between authors. The current focus in this field is on the risk and management of foot ulcers.
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 | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | 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 | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.086 | 0.124 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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.
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".