Why the study?
The study sought to systematically map the knowledge domain and structural evolution of P2Y receptor research in cardiovascular diseases from 2005 to 2025 using a dual-metric framework.
Bibliometric analysis reveals that while P2Y antagonists remain clinically dominant, emerging frontiers focus on de-escalation strategies, immune-inflammation, and myocardial regeneration, with a divergence between social visibility and scholarly impact.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Altmetrics warrant caution when gauging true scholarly impact; leaves open Mendeley's value for citation prediction.
Objective: This study employs a dual-metric framework integrating bibliometric and altmetric analyses to systematically map the knowledge domain and structural evolution of P2Y receptor research in cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) from 2005 to 2025. Methods: Data were systematically retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, PMC, and Altmetric databases. By integrating network visualization (CiteSpace, VOSviewer), descriptive bibliometrics, and qualitative content analysis, this study mapped the structural evolution of the research landscape. Additionally, the correlation between scholarly impact and social visibility was quantified using Spearman analysis. Results: inhibitors like clopidogrel toward immune inflammation, myocardial regeneration, and precision medicine. Altmetric Attention Scores showed a high correlation with social media attention but only a moderate correlation with academic citations, whereas Mendeley readership correlated strongly with citations, revealing a divergence between social visibility and scholarly impact. Conclusion: antagonists remain clinically dominant, emerging frontiers focus on "de-escalation" strategies, immune-inflammation, and myocardial regeneration. Future progress relies on systematic evaluation of subtype selectivity and novel delivery systems, positioning P2Y receptor modulation as a promising avenue for precision cardiovascular medicine.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: