Algorithms on the rise: a machine learning–driven survey of prostate cancer literature

On July 5, 2025, a systematic literature search was conducted across two widely recognized databases: the WOS Core Collection and Scopus. The search strategy for WOS was defined by the query: TS=(“machine learn*”) AND (“prostate cancer” OR “prostate carcinoma” OR “prostatic neoplasm” OR “prostate adenocarcinoma” OR “castration-resistant prostate cancer” OR “metastatic prostate cancer” OR “PCa”), while the search for Scopus used the query: TITLE-ABS-KEY (“machine learn*” AND (“prostate cancer” OR “PCa” OR “prostate carcinoma” OR “prostatic neoplasm” OR “prostate adenocarcinoma” OR “castration-resistant PCa” OR “metastatic PCa”)). Both searches were limited to publications from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2024, and restricted to articles and reviews published in English. For the Scopus database, additional filtering was applied to include only articles from the following subject categories: “Medicine,” “Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology,” “Computer Science,” “Health Professions,” “Immunology and Microbiology,” “Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics,” “Neuroscience,” “Nursing,” and “Psychology.” Following the retrieval, the documents from both databases were merged using Python (version 3.9.14), ensuring consistent terms across the two datasets. Duplicate entries were removed, and records with incomplete or missing information were excluded (Figure 1). The remaining documents were then retained for further analysis.

The analysis leveraged a tripartite toolchain to ensure methodological rigor and multidimensional insights. First, CiteSpace 6.4.R1 (19, 20) was deployed to detect citation bursts and temporal trends. It was configured with 1-year time slices (2005–2024), a g-index term selection criterion (k=25), and Pathfinder network pruning (γ=0.7) to optimize cluster resolution. Concurrently, VOSviewer 1.6.20 (21) was used to generate co-authorship and keyword co-occurrence networks. For mapping countries and institutions, a minimum threshold of five documents per node was applied, with full counting and association strength normalization to minimize bias toward high-frequency terms. For statistical validation and thematic evolution tracking, bibliometrix (version 4.1.0) (22) in R (version 4.3.1) was used to perform Latent Dirichlet Allocation topic modeling—initiating 10 topics through Gibbs sampling over 2,000 iterations. Exponential smoothing (α=0.8) was applied to model productivity trends.

Between 2005 and 2024, a comprehensive analysis identified 2,632 publications in the field of ML-PCa (Figure 2). Initial progress was measured, with annual publications consistently below 20 throughout 2005–2014. Accelerated growth commenced in 2015, driving a sustained increase in output that exceeded 100 articles by 2018 and reached 206 in 2020. The period 2021–2024 witnessed exponential expansion, with annual publications peaking at 472 (2022), 559 (2023), and 661 (2024). Collectively, this trajectory generated an average annual growth rate of 25.4% over the two-decade period, with 82% of cumulative publications (2,173/2,632) concentrated in the final four years (2021–2024). Cumulative citations reached 57,771, attesting to the field’s scholarly significance. Parallel citation trends show moderate fluctuations (400–800 citations annually) during 2005–2013, interrupted by a transient 2009 spike (3,478 citations) attributable to highly influential works. From 2014 onward, citations grew robustly, surpassing 4,000 in 2018 and surging to 6,809 in 2019. The 2020–2022 period sustained exceptional impact (7,000–8,000 citations annually), peaking at 7,989 in 2022. Although 2023–2024 saw a moderate decline to ~3,700 annual citations, persistently elevated levels confirm ML-PCa’s enduring academic relevance.

Globally, researchers from 92 countries/regions have contributed to ML-PCa research. China emerged as the dominant contributor with 649 publications (24.66% of total output), followed by the United States (492 publications, 18.69%) and India (162 publications, 6.16%) (Table 1). Network analysis positioned the United States and China as central hubs (Figure 3A), with the United Kingdom, Canada, and India forming key peripheral connections. Annual growth patterns indicate accelerated global output after 2018, with China and the United States establishing overwhelming dominance by 2024 (Figure 3B).

Analysis of international collaboration revealed significant strategic differences: While China maintained a relatively low multinational collaboration proportion (MCP ratio=13.56%), the United States exhibited higher collaborative engagement (MCP ratio=20.93%). Germany demonstrated the most extensive international integration among top contributors (MCP ratio=39.29%) (Table 1).

Bilateral analysis identified the United States-China partnership (62 joint publications) as the strongest collaborative dyad, followed by United States-Canada (36) and United States-United Kingdom (34) (Figure 3C, Table 2). Citation-based clustering confirmed the dual centrality of the United States and China, while revealing distinct regional clusters: Italy, Germany, and the United Kingdom formed European-oriented groupings, whereas India anchored a separate citation community (Figure 3D).

Global institutional engagement in ML-PCa research spans 3,638 unique organizations. Annual publication trends demonstrate markedly accelerated output after 2015, with particularly steep growth emerging post-2020 (Figure 4A). Leading institutions by publication volume include the Chinese Academy of Sciences (42 publications), University of British Columbia (32 publications), and Shanghai Jiao Tong University (25 publications). Disparities emerge when assessing scholarly impact: while the Chinese Academy of Sciences leads in volume, its average citation rate (CPP=38.31) trails behind several Western counterparts. The University of Toronto achieves the highest CPP (70.54), followed closely by Case Western Reserve University (69.86) and University of Pennsylvania (59.83), signaling exceptionally influential research from these institutions (Table 3).

The institutional collaboration network reveals distinct structural patterns (Figure 4B). Western institutions, particularly University of British Columbia (highest centrality=0.06), Stanford University, and University of Pennsylvania, function as primary global connectors with extensive international linkages. Major Chinese institutions including the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Shanghai Jiao Tong University participate actively in global networks while exhibiting stronger regional cohesion. Research specialization clusters show clear geographic alignment (Figure 4C): North American and European institutions demonstrate concentrated expertise in digital pathology and artificial intelligence applications, whereas Chinese counterparts show heightened focus on cell-free DNA analysis and medical imaging diagnostics.

Citation network analysis confirms a multipolar global impact landscape (Figure 4D). Both the Chinese Academy of Sciences and University of British Columbia anchor densely connected citation cores, with additional regional clusters emerging: Chinese institutions including Huazhong University of Science and Technology form a distinctive citation collective, while institutions from the United States and United Kingdom establish self-contained high-impact modules. This structural configuration reflects China’s transition from peripheral contributor to central knowledge producer, while Western institutions maintain leadership in specialized methodologies and collaborative infrastructure.

Globally, ML-PCa research has been disseminated across 10,437 unique journals, with Cancers (82 publications), Frontiers in Oncology (70 publications), and Scientific Reports (52 publications) constituting the dominant outlets (Table 4). Analysis of scholarly impact reveals Cancers as the most cited journal (1,127 total citations), though Medical Physics demonstrates superior per-article influence (CPP=27.79) despite moderate output volume. Notably, Cancers, Scientific Reports, and IEEE Access share equivalent long-term impact metrics (H-index=17), indicating comparable dominance within the domain (Table 4).

Annual publication trends exhibit exponential growth after 2018, peaking in 2024 with Cancers, Frontiers in Oncology, and Applied Sciences-Basel leading this expansion (Figure 5A). Thematic clustering delineates distinct journal specializations: Cancers and Frontiers in Oncology anchor oncology-focused research, while Sensors and IEEE Access concentrate on computational modeling applications. Medical Physics emerges as a critical interdisciplinary hub through its bridging position between clinical and technological clusters (Figure 5B).

Co-citation network analysis positions high-impact journals including Nature, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, and Cancers as foundational knowledge sources within tightly interconnected citation modules (Figure 5C). These citation relationships underscore the integration of machine learning methodologies into medical research paradigms. Temporal keyword evolution further reveals a transformative trajectory: pre-2015 research emphasized conventional techniques like feature extraction and support vector machines, whereas post-2020 publications increasingly prioritize deep learning, convolutional neural networks (CNN), and radiogenomics (Supplementary Figure 1).

Analysis of cross-domain knowledge flows revealed three primary diffusion trajectories, each demonstrating distinct transdisciplinary pathways (Figure 6). The most prominent trajectory originates from systems and computer engineering journals, with knowledge subsequently adopted by publications in medicine and genetics research. A secondary pathway involves mathematical modeling sources transferring methodological innovations to clinical medical imaging applications. The third trajectory captures how sensor technology literature progressively informs molecular biology and immunology studies. Collectively, this tripartite diffusion pattern establishes ML-PCa research as a multidisciplinary convergence domain wherein computational innovations continually enable transformative advances in precision oncology, fundamentally reshaping biomedical discovery paradigms through cross-pollination of computational and life science methodologies.

The global ML-PCa research community comprises 12,345 authors, with 23.21% of publications involving international collaborations. As documented in Table 5 and Figure 7A, Madabhushi Anant stands as the foremost contributor with 19 publications achieving 1,475 total citations, yielding an exceptional average citation rate of 77.63 per paper and an H-index of 16, establishing clear scholarly leadership. Additional high-impact authors include Abolmaesumi Purang and Mousavi Parvin (8 publications each), while specialists like Shiradkar Rakesh (average citations = 45.13) and Cuocolo Renato (47.50) demonstrate significant influence through focused high-quality output despite modest publication volumes.

Collaboration network analysis reveals critical structural patterns (Figure 7B). Madabhushi Anant occupies the central network hub, maintaining robust ties with Abolmaesumi Purang, Comelli Albert, and Cacciamani Giovanni E., forming the nucleus of a densely interconnected cluster. Distinct multinational subgroups—notably Italian, Spanish, and U.S. researcher collectives—form peripheral subnetworks, reflecting the domain’s internationalized character.

Co-citation analysis identifies foundational knowledge contributors transcending direct publication output (Figure 7C; Table 6). Leo Breiman emerges as the most influential cited author (373 co-citations) with maximal centrality (0.09), underscoring his methodological primacy. Complementary authorities include Siegel Rebecca L. (327 citations) in epidemiological foundations and Wang Yuxing (252 citations) in statistical applications. Thematic clustering demarcates specialized knowledge streams: red and pink clusters concentrate on computational innovations in image recognition and deep learning, while blue and green clusters anchor clinical diagnostics and statistical epidemiology. Litjens Geert’s bridging centrality (0.13) despite moderate citations (202) confirms his role in cross-domain knowledge integration.

Longitudinal keyword evolution documents a profound methodological transition (). Pre-2015 research emphasized feature engineering techniques (“support vector machines”, “texture analysis”, “TRUS imaging”). During 2015–2020, focus shifted toward integrated approaches (“radiomics”, “multiparametric MRI”, “deep learning”). Post-2020 innovations feature advanced architectures (“transformer models”, “attention mechanisms”) and multimodal integration (“radiogenomics”). This trajectory delineates the field’s progression from manual feature extraction toward sophisticated multimodal AI frameworks, increasingly prioritizing automated pattern discovery and biological correlation. 1

Keyword co-occurrence analysis establishes a multidisciplinary framework for ML-PCa research, integrating computational methods with clinical diagnostics (Figure 8A; Table 7). “machine learning” emerges as the dominant keyword (2,388 occurrences), followed by “prostate cancer” (1,726 occurrences), confirming their foundational importance. Centrality analysis identifies critical bridging terms including “Survival” (centrality=0.08), “System”, “Biopsy”, and “Validation” (centrality > 0.06), which facilitate knowledge exchange between technical and clinical domains. While less frequent, “Identification” and “MRI” also demonstrate significant network connectivity, underscoring their role in thematic integration.

Thematic mapping reveals distinct research concentrations through cluster analysis (Figure 8B). Key groupings include Cluster #0 (“deep learning”), Cluster #2 (“prostate cancer”), Cluster #6 (“artificial intelligence”), and Cluster #15 (“predictive modeling”), delineating core domains spanning diagnostic modeling and AI applications. Density visualization (Supplementary Figure 3) further highlights intensive research activity around “prostate cancer”, “diagnosis”, “biopsy”, and “identification”, forming the field’s substantive core.

Temporal evolution demonstrates a paradigm shift in research priorities (;). Early-phase research (pre-2015) emphasized conventional techniques like “pattern recognition”, “algorithm”, “classification”, and “support vector machine”. Post-2015 witnessed accelerating adoption of “deep learning”, “radiomics”, and “image segmentation”, with post-2020 research dominated by emergent concepts including “transfer learning”, “segmentation”, and “radiogenomics”. This progression reflects the field’s transition from feature engineering toward complex multimodal integration. 1 1

Burst detection analysis (Figure 9) reinforces this evolutionary trajectory. Foundational methodologies including “algorithm” and “automated pattern recognition” exhibited strong bursts during 2005–2018, while contemporary emphases feature “transfer learning”, “radiotherapy dosage”, and “radiology” (2020–2024). This shift from methodological exploration to clinical implementation signifies ML-PCa’s maturation into a translational research domain focused on precision oncology applications.

To quantify the extent of clinically oriented research, we relied on bibliometric proxies. Author keyword frequency provided a conservative lower bound: validation appeared 73 times, representing approximately 2.8% of the corpus (73/2,632; Table 7). Keywords such as prospective, randomized, trial, implementation, or real-world were absent from the top 25, suggesting low prevalence overall.

Core literature analysis identifies seminal works anchoring the intellectual structure of ML-PCa research. Bera et al. (2019) (23) (Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology, 880 citations) establishes AI’s transformative role in digital pathology and precision oncology, while Litjens (2014) (24), Fehr (2015) (25), and Lalonde (2014) (26) demonstrate foundational advances in MRI-based detection and tumor microenvironment analysis (Figure 10A; Table 8). These highly connected works reflect the domain’s emphasis on clinical-AI integration across radiology and pathology.

The cited-reference network reveals central clinical guidelines underpinning ML-PCa development (Figure 10B; Table 9). Sung et al. (2021) (115 citations; Table 9) provides critical epidemiology data through GLOBOCAN 2020 (27), while Turkbey et al. (2019) (28)and Weinreb et al. (2016) (29) standardize mpMRI interpretation via PI-RADS v2.1/v2. Key validation studies – Ahmed et al. (2017)’s PROMIS trial (30) and Ström et al. (2020)’s AI-assisted biopsy system (31) – demonstrate the translational impact of these frameworks. Keyword clustering (Supplementary Figure 6) confirms this cross-disciplinary focus, with “machine learning,” “multiparametric MRI,” and “predictive models” forming dominant conceptual hubs.

Co-citation analysis reveals five interconnected thematic clusters that define the methodological architecture of ML-PCa research (Figure 10C; Table 10). The red cluster anchors the field in algorithmic foundations, dominated by Pedregosa et al. (2011)’s Scikit-learn framework (126 co-citations) (32) and Chen et al. (2016)’s XGBoost model (33), establishing Python-based machine learning workflows as standard practice. Directly adjacent, the blue cluster encompasses clinical and imaging standardization, integrating epidemiological benchmarks (27) such as Sung et al. (2021)’s global cancer statistics with PI-RADS validation studies that operationalize mpMRI interpretation guidelines. Complementing these clinical pillars, the purple cluster develops radiomics frameworks for quantitative imaging biomarker extraction, exemplified by Gillies et al. (2016)’s (34) seminal work positioning medical images as mineable data sources. Parallel advances in bioinformatics methods (green cluster) underpin multi-omics data integration through gene expression analysis tools like GSEA and Limma, while the yellow cluster traces clinical translation pathways that bridge technical innovations with implementation workflows, ultimately connecting algorithm development to diagnostic applications.

Highly cited and co-cited reference sets further reinforced this pattern. Landmark clinical validation studies (Strom 2020 (31); Bulten 2020 (35); Kasivisvanathan 2018 (36)) were represented, yet the majority of influential works emphasized methodological development, algorithmic benchmarking, or standardization (Tables 9, 10). Taken together, these bibliometric signals converge on the conclusion that robust clinical validation and implementation studies constitute only a small minority within the field.

Bibliographic coupling (Supplementary Figure 7; Table 11) further validates research convergence into distinct domains: AI-driven clinical imaging applications (Choy et al., 2018 (37); Bera et al., 2019) (23), multi-omics integration platforms (Xia et al., 2009’s MetaboAnalyst) (38), and emerging multimodal fusion techniques (Liu et al., 2017’s Raman spectroscopy approach) (39).

Temporal trends emerge through citation burst analysis (Figure 11). Early bursts (pre-2018) feature radiomics methods (Gillies et al., 2016) (34)and PI-RADS standardization (Weinreb et al., 2016) (29), while later surges prioritize clinical-AI integration: Sung et al. (2021)’s (27) epidemiology burst (intensity 17.36, 2022–2024) and Kasivisvanathan et al. (2018)’s validation of MRI-targeted biopsies (36). The 2018–2020 inflection saw deep learning methodologies (LeCun et al., 2015; XGBoost) (40) gain prominence, accelerating the shift toward clinically deployable tools.

The exponential growth in ML-PCa publications post-2015 signals a critical shift from theoretical exploration to clinical integration. This inflection aligns with pivotal advancements: deep learning maturation (CNN architectures enabling automated image analysis), data infrastructure proliferation (public repositories like PROSTATEx, TCIA), and cross-disciplinary consortia bridging computational and clinical domains (41, 42). The 82% output concentration in 2021–2024, coupled with 57,771 cumulative citations, underscores ML-PCa’s rapid maturation into a core oncology subfield. Yet, the recent citation dip (2023–2024) may reflect preliminary saturation in algorithm-focused studies, urging a pivot toward clinical validation and implementation research.

China’s volumetric dominance (24.66%) highlights state-led investment in AI/healthcare priorities, though its lower MCP ratio (13.56%) suggests regional collaboration preferences. Conversely, the US’s centrality—despite smaller output (18.69%)—exemplifies global scientific integration (MCP ratio: 20.93%), reinforcing its role in knowledge diffusion. Germany’s outlier MCP ratio (39.29%) reflects strategic multilateralism within EU frameworks (Horizon Europe). The bipolar US-China collaboration hub (62 joint publications), alongside India’s autonomous citation cluster, reveals a stratified network topology. Risks include knowledge siloing (Western-centric clinical standards vs. Eastern imaging focus) and resource asymmetry, necessitating policies incentivizing Global South inclusion and data-sharing equity.

Though Chinese institutions dominate publication volume (e.g., Chinese Academy of Sciences: 42 papers), Western counterparts lead influence (University of Toronto CPP: 70.54 vs. 38.31). This quantity-impact divergence stems from differential specialization: North American/European institutions focus on high-impact AI methodology and digital pathology (University of Pennsylvania’s radiomics innovations), while Chinese clusters prioritize imaging diagnostics. Western centrality in networks (UBC: 0.06 centrality) accelerates clinical translation, yet China’s emerging citation cores signify rising methodological credibility. Future gains necessitate bidirectional collaboration: integrating Chinese computational efficiency with Western clinical-validation pipelines.

ML-PCa research exhibits robust interdisciplinary diffusion across three dominant pathways. Engineering-driven innovations (IEEE Access, Sensors) catalyze clinical adoption in oncology journals (Cancers, Frontiers in Oncology), while Medical Physics (CPP=27.79) bridges methodological and clinical domains with superior per-article influence. Temporal keyword evolution confirms deepening integration: post-2020 prioritization of “transformer models” and “radiogenomics” reflects the field’s shift from siloed applications toward biologically contextualized AI systems. Despite this convergence, fragmentation persists between computational and clinical clusters. Standardized reporting frameworks (MI-CLAIM) are urgently needed to streamline translation, particularly as Scientific Reports and IEEE Access emerge as critical venues for methodological prototyping preceding clinical validation.

Madabhushi Anant’s leadership (H-index: 16, CPP:77.63) epitomizes the blend of computational expertise and clinical partnerships driving high-impact innovation. Author clusters reveal globalized specialization: North American/European teams pioneer deep learning integration, while regional hubs (e.g., Italy’s Comelli cluster) refine clinical applications. Co-citation patterns affirm dual foundations: Breiman’s ML theory (centrality: 0.09) and Siegel’s epidemiological frameworks. Temporal keyword shifts—from SVM/feature engineering (pre-2015) to deep learning (2015–2020) and multimodal AI (post-2020)—highlight accelerating biological complexity. Future success hinges on nurturing “bilingual” researchers fluent in both biomedicine and algorithmic design.

The evolution from technical exploration to clinical implementation defines ML-PCa’s maturation. Early emphases on “support vector machines” and “feature extraction” (pre-2015) transitioned toward integrative paradigms (“deep learning,” “multiparametric MRI”) during 2015–2020, culminating in today’s focus on multimodal frameworks (“attention mechanisms,” “radiogenomics”). Burst detection corroborates this trajectory: algorithm-centric bursts (2005–2018) gave way to clinical implementation keywords (“radiotherapy dosage,” burst intensity 5.72, 2020–2024). However, network centrality metrics expose critical translational gaps. High-connectivity terms like “validation” (centrality=0.06), “survival,” and “biopsy” remain underdeveloped compared to methodological terms, indicating insufficient linkage between AI performance metrics and clinical endpoints. Similar concerns have been noted in other bibliometric studies of AI in oncology, where methodological innovation often outpaces clinical integration (23, 43). For example, Elmarakeby et al. (12) highlighted that biologically informed neural networks demonstrated strong discovery potential, yet lacked systematic validation in prospective cohorts. This pattern mirrors our bibliometric evidence of an implementation gap. This imbalance—coupled with geographical bias in training data (78% Western cohorts)—hampers real-world deployment despite technical sophistication.

Our results are consistent with other domain-level bibliometric analyses, which have similarly observed rapid output growth coupled with translational inertia. For instance, recent mapping of AI in radiology underscored that fewer than 15% of studies incorporated prospective validation or multicenter trials, despite exponential publication growth (37, 44). By situating ML-PCa within this broader landscape, our analysis reinforces that bibliometric expansion alone is not a surrogate for clinical readiness.

Five interconnected thematic clusters underpin ML-PCa’s intellectual architecture. Algorithmic foundations (Scikit-learn, XGBoost) directly enable clinical-imaging standards (PI-RADS, PROMIS trials), while radiomics frameworks (Gillies et al.) and multi-omics integration tools (GSEA, Limma) support biologically anchored discovery. This convergence enables emerging translational pathways where methodologies evolve into clinical tools (Bera et al.’s digital pathology frameworks). Citation bursts confirm accelerating clinical emphasis: Sung et al.’s epidemiology (burst intensity 17.36, 2022–2024) and Kasivisvanathan’s biopsy trials dominate post-2020 citations. Yet significant voids persist in the knowledge base—fewer than 3% of highly cited works address ethical governance, health economics, or regulatory science.

Our bibliometric analysis is consistent with broader evidence syntheses: while publication volume and methodological innovation are expanding, high-quality clinical validation remains the exception rather than the rule. For instance, a systematic review of 41 ML RCTs found only a handful conducted with full adherence to CONSORT-AI (18); among 81 non-randomized deep learning imaging studies comparing AI with clinicians, only 9 were prospective and just six tested in clinical settings (45, 46); and in primary-care predictive algorithms, only 28% of FDA- or CE-marked tools satisfied even half of the Dutch AIPA guideline’s evidence criteria (47).

These external findings align closely with our internal bibliometric signals: validation appeared in just ~2.8% of articles (Table 7), trial-related terms were absent from high-frequency keywords, and clinical trial reports were under-represented in the most-cited clusters (Tables 9, 10). Together, these patterns underscore a structural imbalance—abundant retrospective algorithmic benchmarks but scarce prospective, validated, and implemented studies.

Looking forward, closing this gap will require: (1) multi-institutional validation studies using standardized imaging biomarkers (48); (2) Federated Learning solutions for data-scarce populations (49, 50); and (3) SNOMED-CT integration to bridge EHR siloes (51). Without these, ML-PCa risks becoming a methodological echo chamber rather than a transformative clinical discipline.

ML holds transformative potential across prostate cancer research. In diagnostics, integrating multi-omics data (genomic, proteomic, metabolic) with high-resolution imaging enables identification of novel biomarker combinations, significantly enhancing early detection sensitivity and specificity (63). Therapeutically, ML facilitates personalized treatment by predicting optimal drug combinations/sequences based on patient genetics, tumor microenvironment, and treatment history—improving efficacy while reducing adverse effects (64). It further refines radiotherapy planning through precision dose delivery tailored to tumor morphology, maximizing therapeutic impact while sparing healthy tissue (15). Future advances center on enhanced data processing and modeling: Automated AI-driven data annotation (deep learning for pathology images) will streamline workflows (65), ensemble and transfer learning will boost model robustness and accelerate task-specific adaptation (66), and the development of explicable models remains critical for clinical trust and adoption (67).

This study offers a comprehensive analysis of the rapidly growing field of ML in PCa, identifying key trends, influential authors, journals, and research hotspots. By utilizing multiple bibliometric tools, this study provides a multidimensional view of the field. However, the study’s reliance on bibliometric data introduces certain limitations, particularly in evaluating research quality beyond citation metrics. Furthermore, language bias and self-citation may introduce potential sources of errors in the data. Finally, while bibliometrics provide valuable insights into publication trends, they do not offer a nuanced understanding of the methodologies and clinical applicability of this study.