Trend in research and hotspot on exercise therapy at home for stroke patients: a bibliometric analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective This study aims to analyze research trends, co-authorship networks, and hotspots over the past decade regarding research on exercise therapy at home for stroke patients. Methods Articles on exercise therapy at home for stroke patients were routinely searched for in the SCOPUS database from 2013 to 2023. To evaluate and predict the most popular topics and trends in this field, the data collected from the reports are processed using the VOSviewer program. Results The final analysis covered 1943 articles. The number of publications has steadily increased over the past decade. The United States has made the most significant contributions in this field. The University of Toronto (Canada) and Cramer, S.C. were the most productive institutions and researchers. The journal Disability and Rehabilitation has the highest number of publications (Citescore 4.4; SJR 0.76). The research area in this field is predominantly dominated by medicine. The frequently occurring keywords include “stroke,” “rehabilitation,” and “telerehabilitation.” Innovations, such as telerehabilitation and virtual reality (VR), are emerging as key trends, enhancing patient engagement and accessibility in home-based therapy. Conclusions Using bibliometric analysis and network visualization, this study summarizes the latest research on home-based exercise therapy for stroke patients, highlighting the impact of innovative technologies, such as telerehabilitation and VR. This analysis identifies research gaps, trends, and popular subjects, providing a comprehensive framework for future studies on key topics, collaborative initiatives, and developmental patterns.
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 | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.082 | 0.042 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".