Scientific Interest in Lymphedema Rehabilitation; A Bibliometric Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: To conduct bibliometric analysis to explore scientific interest in lymphedema rehabilitation. Method: The data for this study was obtained from Scopus, a multidisciplinary database, for the period of fifty-four years (1969-2023) using keywords ‘lymphedema’ and ‘rehabilitation’. Results: When the term 'Lymphedema' is scanned, 22.080 articles found; In addition, when we added the term 'rehabilitation', 747 articles were found. 271 of the articles were open Access. When we look at the year distribution, the highest number of articles was in 2022 year (N=88). There were 3 articles in 2023 year, 70 in 2021 year, 58 in 2020 year, and 54 year in 2019. USA (184), Italy (51), German (50), Spain (42), Poland (38), Turkey (36), Canada (35), Australia (33), South Korea (33), the United Kingdom (33), produced the most lymphedema rehabilitation research. The distributions of documents types were; article (528), review (151), conference paper (17), editorial (15), book chapter (14) and short survey (9). English was the most common Language with 609 paper. The names of the top 10 authors were as listed; Schmitz KH (13), Armer, JM (12), Invernizzi M (9), Grushina TI (8), Staut NL (8), Stubblefield MD (7), Crevenna R (6), De Urieze T (6), Fusco N (6) and Jean JYO (6). The total number of citations was 1764, the maximum citation was in 2022. H index of the citations was 57. Conclusion: We see the multidisciplinary interest in lymphedema rehabilitation, rising over the years. As a result of early diagnosis of cancer and increased awareness of survival, lymphedema rehabilitation will become among the trend topics of research area.
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
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.323 | 0.364 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".