ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
Myocardial infarction and lung cancer research from 1995 to 2026: a WoSCC- and PubMed-based bibliometric analysis.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Myocardial infarction (MI) and lung cancer frequently coexist within the broader context of cardio-oncology, yet the development, contributors, and thematic evolution of this research interface have not been comprehensively mapped. This study aimed to characterize the bibliometric landscape, collaboration patterns, thematic structure, and temporal evolution of MI and lung cancer research and to identify clinically relevant evidence gaps. Methods: English-language articles and reviews published from 1995 through June 2026 were retrieved independently from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) and PubMed. WoSCC served as the primary dataset for citation, collaboration, co-occurrence, co-citation, and thematic analyses, whereas PubMed was used for supplementary validation using biomedical indexing and Medical Subject Headings. Bibliometric analyses were performed using R/Bibliometrix, CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and Microsoft Excel. Results: After screening, 2,274 WoSCC records and 1,326 PubMed records were included. The annual growth rates were 0.91% and 3.35%, respectively. The United States contributed the largest publication output in both databases, followed by China, although the United States showed a stronger international collaboration profile. Harvard University led WoSCC institutional output, whereas Harvard Medical School ranked first in PubMed. Conclusions: Research at the MI-lung cancer interface has expanded substantially and increasingly reflects the cardiovascular implications of contemporary lung cancer care. Future work should prioritize prospective multicenter studies, standardized cardiovascular endpoints, and integrated strategies for risk assessment, surveillance, and management in patients with lung cancer who are vulnerable to ischemic cardiovascular events.
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.