A Bibliometric Review of the Top 100 Most Cited Articles in Hip Preservation, Not Counting Self‐Citations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To summarize the characteristics of the top 100 most‐cited publications related to hip preservation, not counting self‐citation. Methods Databases accessible through ISI Web of Science were queried for articles related to hip preservation between 1965 and June 2022. Analysis included citation number, visual network mapping, publication year, geographic distribution, authorship, impact factor, citation density, and institution. Data analysis was performed excluding self‐citations. Results The top 100 most cited articles in hip preservation had citations ranging between 151 and 2,001, with publication years between 1965 and 2018. An increase in citation density over time was observed. Fifty‐seven percent of articles were from the United States, 23% from Switzerland, and 8% from Canada; 57% of the articles were published in the 2000s, and a majority were Level IV Evidence (n = 62). Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research led in number of publications (n = 32) and mean citations (n = 353) followed by Arthroscopy—The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery (n =23) and American Journal of Sports Medicine (n = 11). “Femoroacetabular impingement” (occurrences = 19) and “arthroscopy” (15) have been focal keywords since the turn of the 21st century, whereas in the 20th century, “acetabulum” (occurrences = 2) was the predominant keyword. Conclusions The 100 most‐cited articles in hip preservation, not counting self‐citation, were published between 1965 and 2018. Citation density increased over time. The majority of articles were published in the United States and in Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research . The focus in hip preservation has expanded from acetabulum pathology to extensive work across topics including femoroacetabular impingement, capsular biomechanics, and arthroscopy innovation. Level of Evidence Level IV, descriptive epidemiology study using large database.
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 | 0.014 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.158 | 0.192 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".