Characteristics of the top 100 cited original studies on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a bibliometric analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been widely used as a life support for different kinds of acute cardiopulmonary dysfunction. The present study aimed at presenting the global trend of the top 100 cited original studies related to ECMO. Methods: Bibliometric analysis was the primary methodology for this study. Literature data were collected from Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC). Indicators were analyzed and visualized by Excel and VOSviewer, the study design, study population, study topic, journal impact factor (IF), Category Rank and Category Quartile, author, country, journal and keywords were included. Results: The top 100 cited articles were published between 1979 and 2021. With 19 publications, 2020 was the most prolific year. High-income countries or regions, such as the United States of America (USA), France and Canada owned a majority of the articles. Seventeen studies were randomized trials, 52 were finished in single center, and 53 focused on adults. The 100 articles were documented by 31 different journals. The journals were well recognized, with a mean IF2022 of 28.77, a median of 8.8, and a range of 1.6–168.9. The major diseases were viral infection of respiratory system, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) or respiratory failure, pulmonary hypertension of infants, heart failure/cardiogenic shock, diaphragmatic hernia and cardiac arrest. Specifically, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) accounted for 72.7% of viral infections. The disease spectrum changed from congenital cardiopulmonary dysfunction to cardiac arrest, ARDS and cardiopulmonary failure, and to severe COVID infection cases. Another fresh hotspot is immune dysfunction. Conclusions: This bibliometric analysis identified 100 most frequently cited original studies on ECMO and described their characteristics, which may help with further investigations.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
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 | 0.009 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.143 | 0.148 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".