Cronología e impacto de la investigación global sobre dolor crónico postoperatorio: análisis bibliométrico de 40 años de investigación
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To describe the chronology, evolution and impact of global research into chronic postoperative pain. Materials and methods: A bibliometric study was conducted using the Scopus database. A structured search was designed and validated, thereby allowing the collection of metadata, which were analyzed through the Bibliometrix package of the R programming language. The study involved the description of the general characteristics, evolution and calculation of impact metrics of global research into chronic postoperative pain. Results: The study included 1,496 documents, which spanned from 1983 to 2023. Original articles accounted for 70.7 % (n =1,059) of the total output, followed by reviews (n = 357; 23.8 %). There was an international collaboration rate of 15.6 %, and there has been sustained growth in output since 1983, with a sharp increase in the last 13 years, 2022 being the most prolific one (n =191 published documents). It was identified that Canada and Denmark lead the impact of global research and have the most productive authors and institutions. However, the United States is the most prolific country because it leads significant collaboration, mainly with European and Latin American countries. Neuropathic pain, risk factor assessment and pain management were identified as some of the most frequent topics. Over the past approximately 10 years, there has been persistent interest in research on quality of life, prediction, prevention, and risk factor assessment. Recently, there has been interest in studying pain in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery and developing predictive models. Conclusions: The study revealed sustained growth in global research on chronic postoperative pain over the past 40 years. Such growth has been mainly led by Canadian and Danish institutions, despite the United States being the most prolific country. Moreover, there has been a significant transition in the studied topics, moving from the use of drugs and identification of risk factors to the study of predictive models, data systematization, and video-assisted surgery.
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 | 0.024 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.203 | 0.219 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".