Bibliometric analysis reveals research trends in MRI contrast agents for glioma diagnosis, highlighting emerging themes and implications.
This study aims to investigate the research status and latest advancements in the application of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) contrast agents for glioma diagnosis. A comprehensive search was conducted in the Web of Science Core Collection for literature published between 2015 and 2024 related to MRI, contrast agents, and glioma. A total of 454 relevant publications were included and analyzed using bibliometric tools, including the Online Analysis Platform and CiteSpace software. The number of publications peaked in 2017, followed by a gradual decline from 2021 to 2024. The United States, China, and Germany emerged as the leading countries in publication output. Prominent institutions included Johns Hopkins University, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and Oregon Health & Science University. The most frequently cited journals were Radiology , Neuro‐oncology , and Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging . Among authors, Patrick Y. Wen was most cited, followed by Roger Stupp and Jerrold L. Boxerman. Influential references included “Bevacizumab plus radiotherapy‐temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma” and “Consensus recommendations for a standardized Brain Tumor Imaging Protocol in clinical trials.” Research hotspots focus on Nuclear Overhauser Enhancement (NOE), while emerging themes suggested increasing interest in radiotherapy, the blood–brain barrier (BBB), clinical recommendations, radiation necrosis, size, and deep learning applications. This bibliometric and visual analysis highlights the evolving research focus on MRI contrast agents in glioma diagnosis over the past decade. Future directions are likely to include advanced imaging techniques, nanotechnology‐enhanced contrast agents, AI, and deep learning, clinical diagnostics, optimization, biomarker discovery, and personalized medicine approaches.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: