Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 23 references

Graph Analysis of Citation and Co-authorship Networks of Egyptian Authors

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Citation network of Egyptian papers reveals manipulation pattern

desk verdict A genuinely new descriptive dataset for Egyptian scholarly output, but the unvalidated name-based author matching and internal number inconsistencies make the posted results unreliable until fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04015 v1 pith:EUGBHRGN submitted 2024-12-19 cs.DL

Mariam Ayman , Sohaila Kandil , Alaa Moheb , Ahmed Abdelkader , Mohanned Ahmed , Walid Gomaa This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DL
keywords graphanalysisnetworkcitationco-authorshipauthorshippatternmetricsNetworkxEgyptianauthors
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Drawing on open bibliographic data, this paper attempts to establish a reliable network-level picture of Egyptian-affiliated research: a citation graph of 31,508 papers and 320,969 citations, and a co-authorship graph of their authors. The authors argue the cleaned dataset, called AlGoNet, is robust enough to support conclusions about influence, collaboration, and behavior. Their headline findings are a power-law citation degree distribution with exponent $\alpha = 1.725958$, and the detection of 62 non-trivial strongly connected components, which they attribute to journal-supplement citation artifacts and to deliberate pre-publication cross-citation that inflates authors' counts. If the dataset is sound, these results give researchers and policymakers concrete evidence about where Egyptian research impact concentrates and how it can be distorted.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the AlGoNet dataset, built in two phases: web-scraping Google Scholar profiles at seven Egyptian universities to collect 13,027 researcher names, then sending name-based queries to the Semantic Scholar API to retrieve each researcher's papers, references, citation counts, and co-author IDs. The analytical machinery is standard graph theory implemented in NetworkX — degree and eigenvector centrality, clustering coefficient, graph density, and strongly connected components (sets of nodes in which every node can reach every other via directed paths), computed with a standard SCC algorithm. The SCC decomposition is what makes the paper's distinctive claim possible: in a citation graph where edges should point only from newer to older papers, the 62 cycles of size greater than one become a red flag, and manual inspection turns them into evidence about citation manipulation.

What would settle it

Take a random sample of about 500 of the 13,027 name-matched researcher records and manually verify, against the Google Scholar profile and the Semantic Scholar record, that the papers returned actually belong to the same person (same affiliation, co-authors, and publication history); if the mismatch rate is non-trivial, the AlGoNet node set is unreliable and the paper's statistics do not describe Egyptian-affiliated research as claimed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the AlGoNet dataset, assembled from 13,027 researcher names scraped from Google Scholar and matched by name into Semantic Scholar, yields a citation network whose structure is both typical and revealing. The degree distribution follows a power law with scaling exponent $\alpha = 1.725958$ and minimum degree $x_{\min} = 158$, consistent with the 'rich get richer' dynamics seen in many scientific fields. The network is sparse (density $D = 3.55 \times 10^{-6}$) and weakly clustered ($C = 0.019$), and about two-thirds of papers have degree near zero. The most consequential finding is 62 strongly connected components of size greater than one in a graph where papers should only point backward in time; the authors inspect these cycles and find two causes, supplementary-issue articles citing one another and intentional pre-publication cross-citation among papers sharing authors and publication months. This last pattern, the authors argue, is an adopted behavior aimed at raising citation counts and author ranks.

Load-bearing premise

The whole analysis rests on the assumption that the 13,027 researcher names scraped from Google Scholar were matched, by name alone and without validation, to the correct author records in Semantic Scholar; if a substantial share of those matches point to the wrong researchers, every network statistic and every conclusion about citation manipulation is built on the wrong nodes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The AlGoNet dataset can serve as a foundation for future studies of Egyptian research impact, collaboration, and policy decisions.
  • The power-law degree distribution implies a small number of Egyptian-authored papers account for most citations, so evaluations and policies targeting high-impact work should focus on that tail.
  • The 62 non-trivial strongly connected components are evidence that some authors inflate citation counts by cross-citing not-yet-published papers, a practice that can distort rank-based metrics.
  • The co-authorship network's single giant connected component of 73,690 authors indicates that one large, globally connected collaboration cluster dominates Egyptian research networks alongside many small isolated groups.
  • Multi-authored papers are the majority, confirming a strong collaborative trend in Egyptian research output.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the researcher-to-paper matching is name-based and unvalidated, the reliability of every network statistic rests on that matching; a small validation study could test it.
  • The same SCC-detection procedure could be turned into an automated early-warning indicator for citation manipulation in other national or institutional bibliographic datasets.
  • The power-law exponent and network metrics could be compared across countries to see whether the Egyptian network's structure is typical or distinctive, but the paper does not make that comparison.
  • The data collection method could be extended to universities beyond the seven selected to reduce coverage bias and improve generalizability.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper scrapes Google Scholar profiles at seven Egyptian universities to obtain 13,027 researcher names, then queries the Semantic Scholar API by name for each researcher to retrieve their publications and reference lists, producing a cleaned dataset called AlGoNet that the authors report contains 31,508 papers and 320,969 citations. From these data they build citation and co-authorship networks and report descriptive statistics: temporal distribution, degree distribution with a claimed power-law fit (α = 1.725958, xmin = 158), authorship patterns, clustering coefficient, density, centrality measures, strongly connected components, co-authorship edge weights, and connected components. The authors conclude that the dataset is reliable and robust, that a small number of highly cited papers dominate the network, and that 62 non-singleton strongly connected components indicate citation manipulation through pre-publication cross-citation, in addition to legitimate journal supplement structures.

Significance. If the AlGoNet dataset were validated and publicly released, the paper would provide a useful descriptive baseline for Egyptian-affiliated scholarly output and a concrete case study in citation-network analysis. The paper uses standard tools (NetworkX, the powerlaw library) and reports several specific quantitative findings, which is a positive feature. However, the central claim of a 'reliable and robust dataset' is not currently supported because the name-based author matching is unvalidated, the reported dataset counts are internally inconsistent, the power-law fit lacks statistical confidence measures, and the citation-manipulation interpretation is not backed by systematic evidence. The paper does not state any plan to release the dataset or code, further limiting reproducibility. The contribution is therefore mostly descriptive and would need substantial methodological strengthening to rise to the standard of a rigorous network-analysis study.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V-A, Phase 2] The load-bearing step of dataset construction is unvalidated author disambiguation. The paper states, 'For each researcher, we sent an API request by name to retrieve data on their published papers' (§V-A, Phase 2), and the seed set consists of 13,027 names scraped from Google Scholar profiles (§V-A, Phase 1). No author-ID resolution, homonym handling, transliteration disambiguation, or post-hoc validation is reported. Because all nodes and edges in both networks are derived from the union of per-author paper sets, any false match or missed name variant propagates into every reported statistic, including the power-law fit (§V-C2), the SCC counts (§V-C7), and the co-authorship centrality analysis (§V-D). The paper should either release the dataset with matched author IDs and a validation protocol, or carry out and report a sampling-based precision/recall check of the name-to-author mapping.
  2. [Section V-A and V-C7] The reported dataset counts are internally inconsistent and conflate citations with nodes. The paper reports 31,508 papers and 320,969 citations in §V-A; §V-C7 then states that 'the total number of SCCs was expected to be 320,969, the number of nodes in the graph,' treating the citation count as the node count. Additionally, §V-C3's authorship-pattern analysis is based on 30,905 papers without explaining the discrepancy from 31,508. These inconsistencies must be reconciled before the dataset can be called reliable and robust, and they prevent an independent audit of the analysis.
  3. [Section V-C2] The power-law claim is not supported by the reported statistics. The paper lists α=1.7259583924156112 and xmin=158 but gives no uncertainty on α, no goodness-of-fit measure such as the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic or its p-value, and no comparison against alternative heavy-tailed distributions (e.g., log-normal, stretched exponential). The paper also does not specify whether the degree in the distribution is in-degree, out-degree, or total degree. Without these, the claim that 'the degree distribution appears to follow a power law' is an unsupported assertion rather than an empirical finding.
  4. [Section V-C7, Case 2] The conclusion of citation manipulation through pre-publication cross-citation is not established. The paper identifies 62 strongly connected components of size greater than one and attributes them to two causes, with Case 2 asserted as 'adopted behavior by some authors' that is 'unethical.' However, the only concrete example given is Case 1 (journal supplements), and no evidence is provided for the remaining 61 components: common-authorship analysis, publication-date distributions, or a manual inspection of even a sample. SCCs of size greater than one can also arise from data artifacts such as duplicated paper records, citation errors in publishers' metadata, or symmetric references in corrigenda and replies. The authors should either systematically categorize all 62 components and report the distribution of causes, or revise the claim to note that the observed SCCs are consistent with multiple data-generating mechanisms.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section V-C2] The sentence 'The power-law distribution can be expressed as P (x) = Cx −α' should use proper notation and specify that x is the degree; also 'x_min' should be typeset as a subscript.
  2. [Section V-C2 and V-C6] The paper would benefit from stating the definition of degree (in-degree, out-degree, or total) in Section V-C2, since Section V-C2 says 'degree of a node represents the number of citations it received' (in-degree) but Section V-C6 uses degree centrality that may be total degree.
  3. [Section V-C7] The statement 'the total number of SCCs was expected to be 320,969' should be phrased as 'the number of SCCs would be 320,969 if every node were a singleton SCC'; as written, it could be read as claiming that the number of SCCs equals the number of nodes regardless of non-singleton components.
  4. [Section V-C6] The sentence 'the highest degree obtained (=0.0015)' likely should say 'highest degree centrality'; the value 0.0015 does not match the reported degree of 682 for the full network, so the denominator used for normalization should be clarified.
  5. [General] The paper does not state whether the AlGoNet dataset or the analysis code will be made available; a data-availability statement would substantially help reproducibility.
  6. [Section IV] The literature review is very brief and does not discuss existing work on author disambiguation or citation-network cleaning, both of which are directly relevant to the methodology.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the paper's network statistics and SCC findings are empirical summaries computed from a constructed dataset, not results that reduce to their own inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical network-analysis study. Its central outputs—degree distribution, power-law exponent, centrality measures, SCC counts, and co-authorship components—are computed from the AlGoNet dataset using NetworkX and standard formulas. No step defines an output in terms of the quantity it is supposed to predict. The power-law exponent alpha = 1.725958 with xmin = 158 is explicitly fitted to the observed degree distribution using the Python powerlaw library, so it is a descriptive summary statistic rather than an independently tested prediction; the paper does not present it as a prediction from first principles. The SCC-based claim of citation manipulation in Section V-C7 Case 2 is an ex post interpretation of observed strongly connected components, not an input that forces the conclusion. The acknowledged limitation is data-validity risk in Section V-A Phase 2: name-based matching of Google Scholar researcher profiles to Semantic Scholar author records is unvalidated, so errors could propagate to every downstream metric. That is a serious correctness and robustness concern, but it is not circularity: a wrong dataset produces wrong empirical results, not tautological ones. The internal inconsistencies (31,508 papers vs. 30,905 papers in the authorship analysis; 320,969 treated both as total citations and as the number of nodes) further undermine auditability, but they are numerical/correctness issues rather than self-referential derivation. There are no load-bearing self-citations, no imported uniqueness theorems, and no ansatz smuggled in via prior work by the same authors. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The quantitative conclusions depend on a chain of data-collection and modeling assumptions: Semantic Scholar metadata accuracy, name-based author matching, a seven-university sampling frame, and an interpretive leap from SCCs to citation manipulation. The only fitted parameters are the power-law alpha and xmin.

free parameters (2)
  • Power-law scaling exponent alpha = 1.7259583924156112
    Estimated from the empirical degree distribution using the Python powerlaw library; no confidence interval or goodness-of-fit test is reported.
  • Power-law lower cutoff xmin = 158
    Chosen as 'the best minimal value for power law fit' in Section V-C2; no model-selection criterion or sensitivity analysis is given.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Semantic Scholar API returns complete and correctly linked references, citation counts, and author records for the sampled researchers.
    All edges and weights in both networks are built from this metadata with no independent audit; invoked throughout Section V-A Phase 2 and V-C.
  • domain assumption Name-based lookup on Semantic Scholar correctly disambiguates authors with identical or variant names and captures all publications of each Google Scholar profile.
    The paper states 'we sent an API request by name to retrieve data on their published papers' (Section V-A Phase 2); no validation or deduplication of identity is reported.
  • domain assumption Researchers scraped from Google Scholar profiles of seven named universities constitute a representative sample of Egyptian-affiliated authorship.
    The definition of Egyptian-authored papers in Section V-A is operationalized through this list; no sampling frame, inclusion criteria beyond university name, or coverage check is given.
  • ad hoc to paper A strongly connected component of size greater than one in the citation network indicates pre-publication cross-citation rather than legitimate journal supplement structure or a data artifact.
    Case 2 in Section V-C7 asserts this behavior without verifying preprint dates or citation order; Case 1 provides a non-manipulative alternative.
  • standard math Standard graph-theoretic definitions of degree, eigenvector centrality, clustering coefficient, density, and strongly connected components apply unchanged to the constructed citation network.
    These are standard definitions from references [14] and [18]; they are used as unproved background in Sections V-C4 through V-C7.
invented entities (1)
  • AlGoNet dataset
    purpose: Serves as the sole source of all network nodes, edges, and statistics; the paper names it as the foundation for future studies.
    The dataset is described but not released, so no external party can verify its composition or the derived metrics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Graph Analysis of Citation and Co-authorship Networks of Egyptian Authors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EUGBHRGN

@misc{pith2026250104015,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Graph Analysis of Citation and Co-authorship Networks of Egyptian Authors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EUGBHRGN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04015}
}
read the original abstract

The current research conducts a comprehensive analysis of citation networks focusing on publications by authors affiliated with Egyptian institutions. Leveraging the Semantic Scholar platform and its API, a citation network and a co-authorship network graphs are constructed to visualize the interconnections among these publications and their authors. This is done using the Python package for graph analysis (Networkx). The primary objective is to identify influential Egyptian publications and assess the centrality of nodes within the citation network. Through meticulous data collection including web scraping techniques, we obtained a cleaned dataset comprising publications by authors affiliated with Egyptian institutions. The analysis addresses challenges related to data quality, technical intricacies, and time constraints, resulting in a reliable and robust dataset. The findings provide valuable information on the impact of Egyptian publications, offering insights into the scholarly influence of authors associated with Egyptian institutions. This research equips researchers and academics interested in evaluating the impact of Egyptian publications with valuable data for future studies, collaborations, and policy decisions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04015 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. This diagram represents a co-authorship network, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Publications distribution over the years. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Node degree distribution. the degrees after 150 starts to get quite low, indicating that highly cited publications are rare. The degree distribution also appears to follow a power law distribution, with a few highly connected nodes and many nodes with few connections. The power-law distribution can be expressed as P(x) = Cx−α, where α is the scaling exponent, (xmin) is the best minimal value for power law fit and C … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Zoomed-in degree distributions: (a) Degree range 0-50, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Authorship pattern analysis. clustering coefficient Ci is given by: Ci = 2 × ei ki × (ki − 1) where ei is the number of edges between the ki neighbors of node i, and ki represents the degree of the node. The average clustering coefficient of the network is the mean of …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Connected Components [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A word cloud for common words in the papers’ titles. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Zhao and A

    D. Zhao and A. Strotmann, Analysis and Visualization of Citation Networks, 02 2015, vol. 7

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Detecting trends in academic research from a citation network using network representation learning,

    K. Asatani, J. Mori, M. Ochi, and I. Sakata, “Detecting trends in academic research from a citation network using network representation learning,” PLOS ONE, vol. 13, p. e0197260, 05 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Visualizing scholarly influence over time,

    J. Portenoy et al., “Visualizing scholarly influence over time,” Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics , vol. 2, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frma.2017.00008/full

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    Current state and future trends: A citation network analysis of the academic performance field,

    C. Martinez-Perez, C. Alvarez-Peregrina, C. Villa-Collar, and M. S ´anchez-Tena, “Current state and future trends: A citation network analysis of the academic performance field,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 17, no. 15, p. 5352, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17155352

    work page doi:10.3390/ijerph17155352 2020

  5. [5]

    Citation network analysis,

    C. Mclaren and M. Bruner, “Citation network analysis,” International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology , vol. 15, pp. 1–20, 01 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Analysis of effects on scientific impact indicators based on coevolution of coauthorship and citation networks,

    H. Xue, “Analysis of effects on scientific impact indicators based on coevolution of coauthorship and citation networks,” Information, vol. 15, no. 10, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/ 2078-2489/15/10/597

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Revisiting citation prediction with cluster-aware text-enhanced heterogeneous graph neural networks,

    C. Yang and J. Han, “Revisiting citation prediction with cluster-aware text-enhanced heterogeneous graph neural networks,” in 2023 IEEE 39th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) , 2023, pp. 682– 695

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Assessing research collaboration through co-authorship network analysis,

    J. Fagan, K. S. Eddens, J. Dolly, N. L. Vanderford, H. Weiss, and J. S. Levens, “Assessing research collaboration through co-authorship network analysis,” Journal of Research Administration , vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 76–99, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 23 references
  1. [9]

    Co-authorship network and the correlation with academic performance,

    Q. Ariel Xu and V . Chang, “Co-authorship network and the correlation with academic performance,” Internet of Things , vol. 12, p. 100307, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S2542660520301396

    2020

  2. [10]

    Case study–centrality measure analysis on co-authorship network,

    V . Umadevi, “Case study–centrality measure analysis on co-authorship network,” Journal of Global Research in Computer Science, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 67–70, 2013

    2013

  3. [11]

    Rule based metadata extraction framework from academic articles,

    J. Azimjonov and J. Alikhanov, “Rule based metadata extraction framework from academic articles,” CoRR, vol. abs/1807.09009, 2018. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1807.09009

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Semantic scholar documentation,

    Semantic Scholar, “Semantic scholar documentation,” Online, Accessed

  5. [13]

    How popular is your paper? an empirical study of the citation distribution,

    S. Redner, “How popular is your paper? an empirical study of the citation distribution,” The European Physical Journal B , vol. 4, no. 2, p. 131–134, Aug. 1998. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s100510050359

    1998 doi

  6. [14]

    Community detection in networks with positive and negative links,

    V . Traag and J. Bruggeman, “Community detection in networks with positive and negative links,” Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics , vol. 80, p. 036115, 09 2009

    2009

  7. [15]

    Febs letters,

    S. Ahmad, “Febs letters,” FEBS Letters, vol. 357–377, 1995

    1995

  8. [16]

    Managing gsh elevation and hypoxia to overcome resistance of cancer therapies using functionalized nanocarriers,

    N. M. Dabbour, A. M. Salama, T. Donia, R. T. Al-Deeb, A. M. Abd Elghane, K. H. Badry, and S. A. Loutfy, “Managing gsh elevation and hypoxia to overcome resistance of cancer therapies using functionalized nanocarriers,” Journal of Drug Delivery Science and Technology , vol. 67,...

    2022

  9. [17]

    Efficacy and biological correlates of response in a phase ii study of venetoclax monotherapy in patients with acute myelogenous leukemia,

    M. Konopleva, D. A. Pollyea, J. Potluri, B. Chyla, L. Hogdal, T. Busman, E. McKeegan, A. H. Salem, M. Zhu, J. L. Ricker, W. Blum, C. D. DiNardo, T. Kadia, M. Dunbar, R. Kirby, N. Falotico, J. Leverson, R. Humerickhouse, M. Mabry, R. Stone, H. Kantarjian, and A. Letai, “Efficac...

    2016

  10. [18]

    On finding the strongly connected components in a directed graph,

    E. Nuutila and E. Soisalon-Soininen, “On finding the strongly connected components in a directed graph,” Information Processing Letters, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 9–14, 1994. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0020019094900477

    1994

  11. [19]

    The global spine care initiative: A proposal to reduce the global burden of disease and disability caused by spinal disorders,

    “The global spine care initiative: A proposal to reduce the global burden of disease and disability caused by spinal disorders,” European Spine Journal , vol. 27, no. 6, Supplement, September 2018, special Issue: The Global Spine Care Initiative. [Online]. Available: https: //...

    2018

  12. [20]

    The global spine care initiative: World spine care executive summary on reducing spine-related disability in low- and middle-income communities,

    S. Haldeman, M. Nordin, R. Chou, P. C ˆot´e, E. Hurwitz, C. Johnson, K. Randhawa, B. Green, D. Kopansky-Giles, E. Acaroglu, A. Ameis, C. Cedraschi, E. Aartun, A. Adjei-Kwayisi, S. Ayhan, A. Aziz, T. Bas, F. Blyth, D. Borenstein, and S. Y ¨uksel, “The global spine care initiati...

    2018

  13. [21]

    The global spine care initiative: methodology, contributors, and disclosures,

    C. Johnson, S. Haldeman, M. Nordin, R. Chou, P. C ˆot´e, E. Hurwitz, B. Green, D. Kopansky-Giles, K. Randhawa, C. Cedraschi, A. Ameis, E. Acaroglu, E. Aartun, A. Adjei-Kwayisi, S. Ayhan, A. Aziz, T. Bas, F. Blyth, D. Borenstein, and S. Y ¨uksel, “The global spine care initiati...

    2018

  14. [22]

    The global spine care initiative: model of care and implementation,

    C. Johnson, S. Haldeman, R. Chou, M. Nordin, B. Green, P. C ˆot´e, E. Hurwitz, D. Kopansky-Giles, E. Acaroglu, C. Cedraschi, A. Ameis, K. Randhawa, E. Aartun, A. Adjei-Kwayisi, S. Ayhan, A. Aziz, T. Bas, F. Blyth, D. Borenstein, and S. Y ¨uksel, “The global spine care initiati...

    2018

  15. [2023]

    Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/corpus/

    [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/corpus/

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.