Research on Traumatic Knee Osteoarthritis: A Bibliometric and Visualized Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This investigation employs advanced bibliometric visualization techniques to elucidate key research foci and emerging trends in post-traumatic knee osteoarthritis (PTOA) while analyzing global research patterns. Using the Web of Science Core Collection (Science Citation Index-Expanded), we systematically extracted scholarly publications on PTOA from January 1, 1900, to April 16, 2025. Through rigorous bibliometric analysis and systematic indexing of source data, we implemented VOSviewer (v1.6.20) to conduct multidimensional assessments including collaborative network mapping,term co-occurrence analysis, bibliographic coupling, and citation network evaluation. Our comprehensive analysis of 1,488 peer-reviewed articles revealed consistent annual growth in global PTOA research output. The United States emerged as the dominant contributor, demonstrating the highest publication volume, citation counts, and h-index values. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage and Journal of Orthopaedic Research were identified as the most prolific journals, while four institutions—Harvard University, Lund University, the University of Calgary, and the Hospital for Special Surgery—stood out as leading research centers. Three primary research domains were identified:mechanistic studies, clinical investigations, and tissue regeneration research. Projections indicate that clinical translational research, particularly studies on total joint arthroplasty for PTOA management, will dominate future research directions. These findings establish the United States as the field's primary knowledge producer while highlighting clinical applications as the next research frontier in PTOA therapeutics.
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 | Observational | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
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 | 0.012 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.148 | 0.196 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".