Global Research Trends on Gait Rehabilitation in Individuals With Spinal Cord Injury- A Bibliometric Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Bibliometric analysis. OBJECTIVE: The study aims to comprehensively assess the literature related to gait rehabilitation for individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) to identify significant contributors, and to explore the collaborations and emerging themes in the field. METHODS: Original and review articles in English using relevant keywords were searched in the Clarivate Web of Science database. The data from the selected articles were imported into R software. Bibliometric indicators were assessed to determine author contributions, country affiliations, journal sources, and thematic trends. RESULTS: A total of 1313 relevant articles were identified. The USA, followed by Canada and Switzerland were the most prolific countries contributing to gait rehabilitation research in SCI. The most relevant journals were Spinal Cord, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine, Journal of NeuroEngineering, and Journal of Neurotrauma. The highest contributions came from Northwestern University, the University of Miami, and the University of Alberta. The analysis revealed an increase in research interest in gait rehabilitation after 2000, with a focus on interdisciplinary approaches and emerging technologies like robotics, exoskeletons, and neuromodulation. CONCLUSION: The analysis demonstrates the importance of collaborative and interdisciplinary research in gait rehabilitation. The results indicate a shift in research focus from traditional methods to the integration of technology. The impact of publications from the USA and Europe is a notable finding. The study highlights the growth of articles related to technology-driven approaches and understanding neuroplasticity in gait rehabilitation.
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 | Observational | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Review 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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.206 | 0.600 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".