Clubfoot from past to the present: A bibliometric analysis with global productivity and research trends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clubfoot, a common congenital abnormality, affects the lower extremities; however, the literature search revealed no bibliometric research on this subject. Thus, we aimed to holistically analyze scientific articles and reveal global productivity and trend issues. This study statistically analyzed 1417 published articles on clubfoot (1980-2021) from the Web of Science database. Bibliometric network visualization maps were created to reveal trend topics, citation analysis, and cross-country collaborations. The analysis was conducted using Spearman correlation analysis. An exponential smoothing estimator was used to predict article productivity. The United States of America (433, 30.5%), the United Kingdom (166, 11.7%), and India (107, 7.5%) are the top 3 countries contributing to the literature. The Journal of Pediatric Orthopedics (220 articles), the Journal of Pediatric Orthopedics-Part B (147 articles), and Clinical Orthopedics and Related Research (69 articles) are the top 3 most productive journals. Dobbs MB (34 articles) is the most active author, and Shriners Hospital Children (44 articles) is the most active institution. Bibliometric analysis revealed that recently studied trend topics included Pirani score, Dimeglio score, Ponseti method, Ponseti casting, tenotomy, recurrence, neglected, tendon transfer, bracing, gait, risk factors, pedobarography, complex clubfoot, and polymorphism. The most studied subjects included Ponseti technique, treatment/casting, recurrent/relapsed clubfoot, Pirani score, pediatrics/children, foot deformities, surgery, ultrasound, Achilles tendon/tenotomy, gait analysis, casting, outcomes, neglected clubfoot, and tenotomy. Research leadership was determined in the western and European countries and Canada in studies and scientific collaborations on clubfoot; its impact was remarkable in India, China, and Turkey.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.036 | 0.361 |
| 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, 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".