Ab. No. 148 Global Research Trends on Gait Rehabilitation in Individuals With Spinal Cord Injury- A Bibliometric Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This bibliometric analysis 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. This study helps to assess the scientific evolution of the field that occurs with technological advancements. Gait rehabilitation following SCI requires a multi-disciplinary approach and the current analysis will assess the global collaborations and provide insights for policymakers, funders, publishers, and future researchers. Methods: The Clarivate Web of Science Citation Index Expanded database was searched using the keywords (“gait” OR “walking” OR “locomot* OR “Ambulat*”) AND (Spinal cord injur*)” for all original and review English articles that were published from the inception of the database till date. The data from the selected articles were imported into R software, and bibliometric indicators were assessed to determine author contributions, country affiliations, journal sources, and thematic trends. Results: A total of 1313 pertinent articles were found, with the USA leading in contributions to SCI gait rehabilitation research. Other notable contributors include Canada and Switzerland. Key journals include Spinal Cord, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine, Journal of NeuroEngineering, and Journal of Neurotrauma. Leading contributors are Northwestern University, the University of Miami, and the University of Alberta. The analysis indicates a growing interest in gait rehabilitation research post-2000, emphasizing interdisciplinary approaches and emerging technologies such as robotics, exoskeletons, and neuromodulation. Conclusion: The analysis underscores the significance of collaborative and interdisciplinary research in gait rehabilitation, revealing a shift from traditional methods to technology integration. Notably, publications from the USA and Europe have a substantial impact, emphasizing the increasing focus on 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
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 | 0.013 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.093 | 0.139 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.086 | 0.030 |
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".