A century of cardiac rehabilitation research: Bibliometric review of publication history, keyword trends, and citations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research into cardiac rehabilitation (CR), a key model for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, has evolved since first described in 1927. This review aimed to explore this evolution by identifying CR-related publications from the Web of Science Core Collection and summarizing CR research publication history, trends in publication keywords, and citations over time. A total of 8729 CR publications appeared across 1441 journals (median impact factor: 2.6) and were cited 315,819 times, with over 85% (7455/8729) published in the past two decades. These publications involved contributions from 26,909 authors across 120 countries, despite disproportionate domination by high-income countries. Publication keywords have consistently focused on exercise but have evolved from evaluating clinical events, quality-of-life, and return-to-work outcomes to improving accessibility using digital interventions. However, a broader focus on other cardiovascular risk factors, comorbidities, and various research designs may be needed to modernize CR, particularly in lower-income countries.
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 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 | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.031 |
| 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".