Patent and Bibliometric Analysis of the Scientific Landscape of the Use of Pulse Oximeters and Their Prospects in the Field of Digital Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study conducted a comprehensive patent and bibliometric analysis to elucidate the evolving scientific landscape surrounding the development and application of pulse oximeters, including in the field of digital medicine. Utilizing data from the Lens database for the period of 2000-2023, we identified the United States, China, the Republic of Korea, Japan, Canada, Australia, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom as the predominant countries in patent issuance for pulse oximeter technology. Our bibliometric analysis revealed a consistent temporal trend in both the volume of publications and citations, underscoring the growing importance of pulse oximeters in digitally-enabled medical practice. Using the VOSviewer software(version 1.6.18), we discerned six primary research clusters: (1) measurement accuracy; (2) integration with the Internet of Things; (3) applicability across diverse pathologies; (4) telemedicine and mobile applications; (5) artificial intelligence and deep learning; and (6) utilization in anesthesiology, resuscitation, and intensive care departments. The findings of this study indicate the prospects for leveraging digital technologies in the use of pulse oximetry in various fields of medicine, with implications for advancing the understanding, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of cardio-respiratory pathologies. The conducted patent and bibliometric analysis allowed the identification of technical solutions to reduce the risks associated with pulse oximetry: improving precision and validity, technically improved clinical diagnostic use, and the use of machine learning.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.073 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".