MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411177816 · doi:10.2147/jmdh.s476838

A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends in Spousal Support for Breast Cancer Patients

2025· review· en· W4411177816 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yanping Liu, Yanxue Zhai, Limei Gao, G. Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicineBibliometricsCancerData scienceComputer scienceOncologyInternal medicineData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The annual rise in breast cancer incidence is a significant issue that threatens women’s health and imposes various physical and psychological effects on male spouses, while these spouses often serve as the primary source of social support for patients. Purpose: To conduct a systematic analysis of publications, countries, institutions, journals, disciplines, authors, keywords, and references related to spousal support for breast cancer patients using bibliometric methods. Methods: We searched the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC) for publications related to spousal support for breast cancer patients from January 2004 to December 2024. CiteSpace (6.4 R1, 64-bit Advanced Edition) and Microsoft Office Excel 2019 were used for bibliometric analysis and chart generation. Results: Our study analyzed 672 articles in the WOSCC database on spousal support for breast cancer patients over the past two decades. These publications have exhibited a trend of fluctuating growth. Research area primarily focuses on oncology, psychology, and nursing, with findings mainly published in Psycho-Oncology and Supportive Care in Cancer . The United States, Canada, and Australia lead this research domain, with the University of California system, Duke University, and Harvard University being the principal research institutions. Laura S. Porter and Donald H. Baucom are among the most prolific authors. The main keyword clusters include #1 caregiving burden, #2 quality of life, #3 sexual health, #4 qualitative study, #5 dyadic coping, and #6 marital status. The references focus on social psychology, intimate relationships, emotional communication, and coping interventions. Conclusion: This bibliometric study analyzes research on spousal support for breast cancer patients during the last two decades, outlining the publications, countries, institutions, journals, disciplines, and authors that have significantly influenced the field. Emerging trends in research on spousal support for breast cancer patients emphasize valuing the caregiving burden endured by spouses, exploring their support experiences, identifying spousal support barriers, and addressing intimacy challenges. Keywords: breast cancer, spouse support, visual analysis, cite space, review, research hotspots

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.3030.272
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.136
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.389 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Multidisciplinary HealthcareSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207