The 100 most cited papers on total anomalous pulmonary venous connection: a bibliometric analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The number of citations a paper receives reflects its impact on the scientific community. We aimed to identify and explore the characteristics of the most cited papers on total anomalous pulmonary venous connection (TAPVC). Methods Web of Science Core Collection Expanded Science Citation Index (1900 to present) was searched and papers on TAPVC were reviewed. Articles were ranked by the number of citations and the 100 most cited papers were analyzed. Results The 100 most cited papers were published between 1952 and 2018 with a mean number of citations of 52 (range 26 to 148). The 1990s was the most productive decade. All articles except one were written in English. The 100 most cited articles were published in 24 journals, led by Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (21 articles), followed by Annals of Thoracic Surgery (20 articles), and Circulation (16 articles). The United States of America contributed most of the 100 most cited papers (60 articles). Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto led the list of citation classics with six papers. Christopher A. Caldarone, John W. Kirklin, and P. E. F. Daubeney were the most productive authors with 3 articles each. More than half of the papers were cohort studies (51 articles). Surgery, radiology and etiology were the main topics. Thirty-one articles were funded by public foundations, and none received support from commercial companies. Conclusions The bibliometric analysis gives a historical perspective on scientific progress in the field of TAPVC and lays the foundation for future research.
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 | Observational | 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.162 | 0.470 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.476 | 0.168 |
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.
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".