A bibliometric analysis of acute myocardial infarction in women from 2000 to 2022
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Plenty of publications had been written in the last several decades on acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in women. However, there are few bibliometric analyses in such field. In order to solve this problem, we attempted to examine the knowledge structure and development of research about AMI in women based on analysis of related publications. Method: The Web of Science Core Collection was used to extract all publications regarding AMI in women, ranging from January 2000 to August 2022. Bibliometric analysis was performed using VOSviewer, Cite Space, and an online bibliometric analysis platform. Results: A total of 14,853 publications related to AMI in women were identified from 2000 to 2022. Over the past 20 years, the United States had published the most articles in international research and participated in international cooperation the most frequently. The primary research institutions were Harvard University and University of Toronto. Circulation was the most cited journal and had an incontrovertible academic impact. 67,848 authors were identified, among which Harlan M Krumholz had the most significant number of articles and Thygesen K was co-cited most often. And the most common keywords included risk factors, disease, prognosis, mortality, criteria and algorithm. Conclusion: The research hotspots and trends of AMI in women were identified and explored using bibliometric and visual methods. Researches about AMI in women are flourishing. Criteria and algorithms might be the focus of research in the near future, which deserved great attentions.
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 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 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.077 | 0.112 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".