Bibliometric Analysis of the Top 50 Most Cited Studies on Achilles Tendon Pathology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The development of Achilles tendon treatment modalities has been rapid, and it is increasingly difficult for clinicians to stay up to date with the most influential studies in this field. In order to fully understand the current state of the literature regarding Achilles tendon injury, it is invaluable to be familiar with the foundational articles and studies upon which the field is built. Purpose: To objectively determine the 50 most frequently cited studies in Achilles tendon pathology and to conduct a bibliometric analysis. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: The Clarivate Analytics Web of Knowledge database was used to gather data and metrics of Achilles tendon research. The 50 most cited articles were selected for analysis from an initial 17,244 identified articles. The information extracted for each article included author name, publication year, country of origin, journal name, study type, and level of evidence. Results: For these 50 studies, the total number of citations was calculated to be 13,159, with a mean of 263.2 citations per paper. The most cited article collected 657 citations. The publication dates of the 50 studies included in this analysis spanned 41 years (1972-2013). The largest number of articles were published by Swedish authors (n = 14); however, many other countries were represented, including Canada and Finland (n = 6 articles each). The most prevalent study designs were cohort studies (n = 13) with level 4 evidence studies being the most common (n = 14). Conclusion: Among the 50 most influential articles in Achilles tendon pathology, the study designs most commonly used were cohort studies and review articles. Sweden was the country of origin for the most studies included on this list, which reflects this country's interest and commitment to researching Achilles tendon injuries and treatments.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.063 | 0.124 |
| 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, 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".