A bibliometric worldview of breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer from 2013 to 2023
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last decade, significant advancements have been made in breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for breast cancer. However, there is a lack of analytical and descriptive investigations on the trajectory, essential research directions, current research scenario, pivotal investigative focuses, and forthcoming perspectives. The objective of this research is to provide a thorough update on the progress made in BCS for breast cancer over the preceding decade. Retrieved from the Web of Science database, the data span from January 1, 2013, to November 30, 2023. Utilizing a set of advanced analytical instruments, we conducted comprehensive bibliometric and visual analyses. The findings underscore the predominant influence of the USA, representing 35.77% of the overall publications and playing a pivotal role in shaping research within this field. Notable productivity was evident at various institutions, including the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, and the University of Toronto. Annals of Surgical Oncology contributed the most publications in this field. An examination of keywords indicated a change in the concentration of research attention, transitioning from molecular subtype, ultrasonography, and intraoperative aspects to SEER, male breast cancer, and adjuvant measures. By offering a comprehensive bibliometric assessment, this study enhances our understanding of BCS for breast cancer. Consequently, this benefits both experienced researchers and newcomers alike, providing prompt access to essential information and fostering the extraction of innovative concepts within this specific field.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".