ReviewCerebellum (London, England)2025
The Cerebellar Role in Emotions at a Turning Point: Bibliometric Analysis and Collaboration Networks.
Review in Cerebellum (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The neural basis of emotional experience, both in neurotypical and clinical conditions, remains an open research topic. Historically, the cerebellum was considered a purely motor structure; however, studies since the mid-twentieth century and contributions like the cerebellar cognitive-affective syndrome, evidenced its role in emotion. This has led to an expansion of the paradigm, encouraging further research into the cerebellar role in emotion. Understanding this field's development is essential to assessing its current state, identifying knowledge gaps, and exploring emerging areas. This paper analyzes the evolution of scientific production, addressing how scientific interest has changed over time, factors driving growth, dominant topics, leading figures, and collaboration networks. This analysis identifies trends and opportunities, guiding strategies and advancing knowledge through a comprehensive view of the state-of-the-art in this research area. To achieve this, a systematic search was conducted in key databases, identifying 1,162 publications with which an exhaustive quantitative analysis was conducted using bibliometric techniques, network analysis, and visualization tools. The results show exponential growth in the field, evidenced by the increase in publications, researchers, funding sources, and the emergence of new topics. This interest, along with an interdisciplinary approach, has fostered collaboration, with large teams and multicenter projects emerging, although small, isolated teams still predominate. Research mainly focuses on neurological and affective disorders, with a predominance of studies in humans, followed by rodent models. Overall, the analysis reveals a highly interdisciplinary and expanding field. However, challenges remain, including unequal access to resources and limited exploration of some topics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.