Sensor-Based Rehabilitation in Neurological Diseases: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: As the field of sensor-based rehabilitation continues to expand, it is important to gain a comprehensive understanding of its current research landscape. This study aimed to conduct a bibliometric analysis to identify the most influential authors, institutions, journals, and research areas in this field. Methods: A search of the Web of Science Core Collection was performed using keywords related to sensor-based rehabilitation in neurological diseases. The search results were analyzed with CiteSpace software using bibliometric techniques, including co-authorship analysis, citation analysis, and keyword co-occurrence analysis. Results: Between 2002 and 2022, 1103 papers were published on the topic, with slow growth from 2002 to 2017, followed by a rapid increase from 2018 to 2022. The United States was the most active country, while the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology had the highest number of publications among institutions. Sensors published the most papers. The top keywords included rehabilitation, stroke, and recovery. The clusters of keywords comprised machine learning, specific neurological conditions, and sensor-based rehabilitation technologies. Conclusions: This study provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of sensor-based rehabilitation research in neurological diseases, highlighting the most influential authors, journals, and research themes. The findings can help researchers and practitioners to identify emerging trends and opportunities for collaboration and can inform the development of future research directions in this 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 | Not applicable | 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 | 0.015 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.162 | 0.176 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| 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".