Trend analysis of family-centered care in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU): A bibliometric study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: The study focuses on the analysed trends in FCC practices in NICUs and their effects on neonatal and family outcomes.Material and Methods: This study conducted a bibliometric analysis of 1,198 peer-reviewed articles from the Scopus database .Publication, citation, H index, and keyword analysis were used to track research developments.Research themes were identified using co-citation analysis and bibliometric mapping (VOSViewer) tools to identify intellectual connections and institutional contributions.Results: The number of publications by FCC in NICUs (2000-2025) was analysed, and 1,198 publications were found, with the U.S. (2,208), Canada (555), and the UK (250) in corresponding order.With 28 articles, Axelín A is the leading author, and the University of Turku is the leading affiliation (Affiliation with 64 publications).Female (1,163) and infant (799) are the most frequent keywords.From 95 articles, Advances in Neonatal Care emerges as the leading source of information.Discussion: The results of this study reiterate the growing importance of Family Centered Care (FCC) in NICUs, key contributors, institutions, and journals.FCC improves neonatal outcomes and family well-being while recognizing the need for global collaboration.
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 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 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.136 | 0.202 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".