A decade of SGLT2 inhibitors in cardiovascular science: a bibliometric review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have gained significant attention in cardiovascular science due to their cardioprotective and Reno protective effects beyond glucose control. Over the past decade, research in this field has expanded rapidly. This study aims to conduct a bibliometric analysis of global research trends on SGLT2 inhibitors in cardiovascular diseases from 2014 to 2024, evaluating publication output, citation impact, influential contributors, keyword trends, and international collaboration networks. Methods: A bibliometric analysis was performed using the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection database, focusing on articles published between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2024, within the “cardiac cardiovascular system” category. VOSviewer software was utilized to visualize author collaborations, institutional affiliations, keyword co-occurrence, and citation distributions. Results: A total of 1,271 articles were analyzed. Research output has increased significantly, particularly after 2020, aligning with key clinical trials on SGLT2 inhibitors. The most prolific journals included Cardiovascular Diabetology, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and European Journal of Heart Failure. Leading institutions such as Harvard Medical School, University of Toronto, and University of Groningen were identified as major contributors. Citation analysis highlighted high-impact studies on SGLT2 inhibitors’ cardiovascular and renal benefits. Keyword co-occurrence analysis showed that heart failure, diabetes mellitus, and renal protection were dominant themes. The United States, Germany, and China emerged as major players in global collaborations, shaping the research landscape. Conclusion: The bibliometric findings suggest that research on SGLT2 inhibitors in cardiovascular diseases is rapidly evolving, with increasing global contributions and high-impact publications shaping clinical applications. Future studies should focus on long-term cardiovascular and renal outcomes, mechanistic insights, and comparative effectiveness research to further establish SGLT2 inhibitors’ role in cardiovascular medicine.
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 | 0.019 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.130 | 0.209 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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, 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".