Research Trends around Exercise Rehabilitation among Cancer Patients: A Bibliometrics and Visualized Knowledge Graph Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study analyzed the research hotspots and frontiers of exercise rehabilitation among cancer patients via CiteSpace. Relevant literature published in the core collection of the Web of Science (WoS) database from January 1, 2000, to February 6, 2022, was searched. Further, we used CiteSpace5.8R1 to generate a network map and identified top authors, institutions, countries, keywords, and research trends. A total of 2706 related literature were retrieved. The most prolific writer was found to be Kathryn H Schmitz (21 articles). The University of Toronto (64 articles) was found to be the leading institution, with the United States being the leading country. Further, "rehabilitation," "exercise," "quality of life," "cancer," and "physical activity" were the top 5 keywords based on frequency; next, "disability," "survival," "fatigue," "cancer," and "rehabilitation" were the top 5 keywords based on centrality. The keyword "fatigue" was ranked at the top of the most cited list. Finally, "rehabilitation medicine," "activities of daily living," "lung neoplasm," "implementation," "hospice," "exercise oncology," "mental health," "telemedicine," and "multidisciplinary" are potential topics for future research. Our results show that the research hotspots have changed from "quality of life," "survival," "rehabilitation," "exercise," "cancer," "physical therapy," "fatigue," and "breast cancer" to "exercise oncology," "COVID-19," "rehabilitation medicine," "inpatient rehabilitation," "implementation," "telemedicine," "lung neoplasm," "telehealth," "multidisciplinary," "psycho-oncology," "hospice," "adapted physical activity," "cancer-related symptom," "cognitive function," and "behavior maintenance." Future research should explore the recommended dosage and intensity of exercise in cancer patients. Further, following promotion of the concept of multidisciplinary cooperation and the rapid development of Internet medical care, a large amount of patient data has been accumulated; thus, how to effectively use this data to generate results of high clinical value is a question for future 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 | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical 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 | 0.005 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.172 | 0.164 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".