Orthopedic research productivity of KSA: First bibliometric analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Medical research is a crucial indicator of a nation's reputation and development. However, there are concerns about the limited orthopedic research in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Therefore, this study conducted bibliometric analysis to investigate orthopedic research output from KSA. Methods: PubMed database for orthopedic articles, with a minimum of one KSA-affiliated orthopedic author published from the year 2000 onwards, was searched. This excluded duplicate articles, corrections, letters, editorials, commentaries, and brief communications. The titles of the included articles, publication years, first and corresponding authors' primary affiliations and countries, countries and institutes of research, and total citations were noted. Thereafter, year-wise research contribution, top contributing and collaborating nations, top contributing affiliations, study types, levels of evidence, journal distribution, their impact factor, h-index and quartile-related information, and citation trends were analyzed. Results: The search strategy yielded 1047 eligible articles. An increasing trend in research contributions in recent years was observed, with the least number of articles (8) contributed in 2005 and the most (140) in 2023. The research was conducted in KSA for most articles (83.48%). Authors from Canada collaborated in 3.44% of the articles. King Saud University was the top contributing institution (17.38% of all articles). There were 66 (6.30%) basic science studies and 873 (83.3%) clinical studies. Among non-basic science studies, 84.51% had level IV evidence. Overall, 73.83% of articles had either first/corresponding or both authorships from KSA-affiliated orthopedic authors. The eligible articles were published in 303 journals, with a mean impact factor of 3.04 (range 0.4-51.1, 165 journals) and a mean h-index of 59.2 (range 1-367, 277 journals). Overall, 31.23% of articles with quartile information available were published in first-quartile journals. Conclusions: The orthopedic research productivity in KSA is limited. However, there has been an increasing trend in orthopedic research in recent years. Nevertheless, the quality of clinical research, particularly the level of evidence, needs improvement. Therefore, further efforts should be made to strengthen research opportunities and encourage research participation among orthopedic and medical institutes.
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 | BibliometricsMetaresearch Domain: Evaluation · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | BibliometricsMetaresearch Domain: Evaluation · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.162 | 0.114 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.753 | 0.947 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".