Bibliometric analysis of global research in palliative care for cervical cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The present study aims to conduct a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of global research in palliative care for cervical cancer, providing insights into publication trends, authorship patterns, influential journals, and thematic concentrations. Methods: A bibliometric analysis approach was employed using metadata extracted from Scopus spanning 2000-2023. The search utilized main terms related to cervical cancer and palliative care. Data analysis and visualization were performed using the Bibliometrix R Package's web app Biblioshiny and VOSviewer software. Results: The study identified 2,492 publications on palliative care for cervical cancer, with a notable peak in 2021. The analysis revealed a diverse publication landscape, encompassing primarily articles. Citation analysis showed a staggering 63,994 citations. The most relevant journals were The Lancet Oncology, Gynecologic Oncology, and International Journal of Gynecological Cancer. The study also highlighted influential authors, institutions, and countries, with Harvard University, the University of Toronto, and the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center leading in publications. Discussion: The findings reflected a growing interest in palliative care for cervical cancer, marked by increasing publications over the years. However, the analysis indicated limited international collaborations, with research efforts concentrated in high-income countries. Thematic areas include surgery, palliative care, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and quality of life. Thus, further collaborations and research in developing countries are needed. Conclusion: This bibliometric analysis showcased a comprehensive overview of the global research landscape on palliative care for cervical cancer. The study identified trends, key contributors, and thematic concentrations, offering valuable insights for future research directions and enhancing palliative care services. Addressing the identified gaps, fostering international collaborations, and directing research efforts toward developing countries can contribute to the advancement of palliative care for cervical cancer globally.
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 | 0.018 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.205 | 0.259 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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, 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".