MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389571385 · doi:10.3389/fphar.2023.1326583

Research hotspots and trend analysis of cell transplantation in traumatic spinal cord injury: a bibliometric and visualized analysis

2023· article· en· W4389571385 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yuhuai Guo, Bowen Gao, Shilin Sun, Jianuo Li, Xiaolin Lv, Hongna Yin, Zhongren Sun, Shuo Cai

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pharmacology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransplantationChinaBibliometricsMedicineLibrary scienceWeb of scienceMainland ChinaPathologyGeographyMeta-analysisSurgeryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: A traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI) can lead to severe nerve damage and disability. Cell transplantation therapy has shown great potential in the reconstruction of damaged spinal cords and promoting functional recovery. However, there is a lack of frontiers and futures analysis in the study of cell transplantation in TSCI. Methods: We used CiteSpace, VOSviewer and biblilometrix R package to perform bibliometric analysis on cell transplantation in TSCI from 2013 to 2023. Bibliometric records were extracted from English articles and reviews from the Web of Science core collection. Results: The bibliometric analysis included 284 papers published in 154 journals by 1,780 authors from 487 institutions in 41 countries and regions. The number of articles published in the past decade has fluctuated slightly, while the number of article citations has steadily increased. Mainland China and the United States are the leading countries and regions in this field, with the National Natural Science Foundation of China being the most funded foundation, and the United States being the country with the most funded articles. The University of Toronto in Canada is a prolific institution. Michael G. Fehlings has published the most articles, and D Michele Basso is the most cited author. Cell transplantation is the most published journal, and the Journal of Neurotrauma is the most cited journal. Cell and tissue engineering and clinical neurology are the basic disciplines in this field, and cutting-edge disciplines include developmental biology, biochemistry and molecular biology, and materials science and multidisciplinary. This study also helps scholars understand the current hotspots and future trends in this field. Marrow stromal cells, glial progenitor, and cell therapy are current research hotspots in this field, while nerve regeneration, cell therapy, and the safety of transplantation of transplantation may be potential research directions in the future. Conclusion: Cell transplantation after TSCI is receiving increasing attention. Cell therapy is both the frontier and a possible future trend in TSCI research. In addition, glial progenitor and marrow stromal cells are also current research hotspots. Meanwhile, nerve regeneration and safety of transplantation may be potential research directions. These findings will help further deepen research on cell transplantation for TSCI in scientific work.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.1470.176
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.410 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PharmacologySame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207