Occupational Therapy Research Publications From 2001 to 2020 in PubMed: Trends and Comparative Analysis with Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A limited understanding of trends in occupational therapy (OT) research publications exists. This study aimed to evaluate trends in OT research publications, in PubMed (2001–2020), compared to physiotherapy and rehabilitation. A method of secondary analysis of publication trends in the PubMed database was used. Medical subject headings for OT, physiotherapy, and rehabilitation were combined with search filters (e.g., population age, study design, and OT practice area). Linear regressions were computed to analyze changes in yearly growth. OT research publications increased by 5.86 per year and comprised less than 2.5% of rehabilitation research publications yearly. Knowledge synthesis was the predominant OT study design (2.94% yearly increase; p < .001). Intellectual/cognitive conditions and emergent practice areas in OT research publications increased over time (both p = .007). OT research publications were relatively evenly distributed across population age. OT research publications are increasing over time but lag relative to physiotherapy and rehabilitation broadly. Our findings may inform future OT research priorities.
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 | 0.020 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.095 | 0.116 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".