An Assessment of the World’s Contribution to Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures: A Bibliometric Analysis of Surgical Management; An AO Spine Knowledge Forum Trauma and Infection Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study DesignBibliometric analysis.ObjectivesAnalysis of literature on surgical management of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures to identify the top contributing authors, countries, collaborators and the trends of research.MethodsA search to identify original articles published in English between 2011 and 2020 was done using specific keywords in the Web of Science database. After screening, 442 articles met the criteria which were analysed using Biblioshiny R software.ResultsThe top contributing authors were Yang HL (first), Wang H (second) and Hao DJ (third). Amongst the universities, the major contributing ones were Soochow University (first), Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine (second) and University of Toronto (third). China (first), USA (second) and South Korea (third) were the top contributing countries. The maximum articles were published in Spine, Osteoporosis International and European Spine Journal. The most common articles were on comparisons between kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty, the associated complications and newer modalities of investigations of osteoporosis. Major work surrounds the keywords kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty which are significantly clustered as compared to others.ConclusionsThe study identified the most prolific contributing authors (Yang HL, Wang H) and universities (Soochow University, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine), the journals where this work is considered more impactful (Spine, Osteoporosis International) and the top contributing countries (China, USA) and collaborations. This study showed that major work is regarding the cement augmentation techniques of kyphoplasty/vertebroplasty and the attempts at establishing newer techniques of diagnosis of osteoporosis. The study also brought out major differences in findings from that of the previously published study on spine trauma bibliometrics.
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: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.058 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".