Application of Artificial Intelligence in rehabilitation science: A scientometric investigation Utilizing Citespace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents a scientometric analysis of the intersection between rehabilitation science and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, using data from the Web of Science (WOS) database from 2002 to 2022. The analysis employed a comprehensive search query with key AI-related terms, focusing on a wide range of publications in rehabilitation science. Utilizing the Citespace tool, the study visualizes and quantifies the relationships between key terms, identifies research trends, and assesses the impact of AI technologies in rehabilitation science. Findings reveal a significant increase in AI-related research in this field, particularly from 2017 onwards, peaking in 2021. The United States has been a leading contributor, followed by countries like England, Australia, Germany, and Canada. Major institutional contributions come from Harvard University and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth System of Higher Education, among others. A keyword co-occurrence network constructed through Citespace identifies nine distinct hot topics and various research frontiers, highlighting evolving focus areas within the field. Burst analysis of keywords indicates a shift from performance and injury-related research to an increasing emphasis on AI and deep learning in recent years. The study also predicts the potential impact of papers, spotlighting works by Kunze KN and others as significantly influencing future research directions. Additionally, it examines the evolution of knowledge bases in AI-related rehabilitation science research, revealing a multidisciplinary core that includes neurology, rehabilitation, and ophthalmology, extending to complementary fields such as medicine and social sciences. This scientometric analysis provides a comprehensive overview of AI's application in rehabilitation science, offering insights into its evolution, impact, and emerging trends over the past two decades. The findings suggest strategic directions for future research, policy-making, and interdisciplinary collaboration in rehabilitation science and AI.
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 | 0.021 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.184 | 0.263 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".