ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2015
Increasing disparities between resource inputs and outcomes, as measured by certain health deliverables, in biomedical research.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Cross-race vs. same-race collaboration in plastic surgery: AI-driven analysis of research and race-interaction dynamics.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Unconventional Non-rodent Models in Neurological Research: Exploring New Paths to Translational Insights.Journal of molecular neuroscience : MN · 2025Review
- Verification of nucleotide sequence reagent identities in original publications in high impact factor cancer research journals.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2024Article
- Scientometrics and academia.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 2024Article
- Data, measurement and empirical methods in the science of science.Nature human behaviour · 2023Review
- Establishing ground truth in the traumatic brain injury literature: if replication is the answer, then what are the questions?Brain communications · 2023Review
- Federal Funding and Citation Metrics of US Biomedical Researchers, 1996 to 2022.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Machine learning for medical imaging: methodological failures and recommendations for the future.NPJ digital medicine · 2022Review
- Data Integration for the Study of Outstanding Productivity in Biomedical Research.Procedia computer science · 2022Article
- Personalization of medical treatments in oncology: time for rethinking the disease concept to improve individual outcomes.The EPMA journal · 2021Review
- Biomedical text mining for research rigor and integrity: tasks, challenges, directions.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2018Article
- How to design preclinical studies in nanomedicine and cell therapy to maximize the prospects of clinical translation.Nature biomedical engineering · 2018Article
- Economic returns to medical research funding.BMJ open · 2018Article
- Writing a discussion section: how to integrate substantive and statistical expertise.BMC medical research methodology · 2018Review
- Bridging the gap: large animal models in neurodegenerative research.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2017Review
- Article-level assessment of influence and translation in biomedical research.Molecular biology of the cell · 2017Article
- Crisis in Infectious Diseases: 2 Decades Later.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2017Review
- Is Open Science the Future of Drug Development?The Yale journal of biology and medicine · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Society makes substantial investments in biomedical research, searching for ways to better human health. The product of this research is principally information published in scientific journals. Continued investment in science relies on society's confidence in the accuracy, honesty, and utility of research results. A recent focus on productivity has dominated the competitive evaluation of scientists, creating incentives to maximize publication numbers, citation counts, and publications in high-impact journals. Some studies have also suggested a decreasing quality in the published literature. The efficiency of society's investments in biomedical research, in terms of improved health outcomes, has not been studied. We show that biomedical research outcomes over the last five decades, as estimated by both life expectancy and New Molecular Entities approved by the Food and Drug Administration, have remained relatively constant despite rising resource inputs and scientific knowledge. Research investments by the National Institutes of Health over this time correlate with publication and author numbers but not with the numerical development of novel therapeutics. We consider several possibilities for the growing input-outcome disparity including the prior elimination of easier research questions, increasing specialization, overreliance on reductionism, a disproportionate emphasis on scientific outputs, and other negative pressures on the scientific enterprise. Monitoring the efficiency of research investments in producing positive societal outcomes may be a useful mechanism for weighing the efficacy of reforms to the scientific enterprise. Understanding the causes of the increasing input-outcome disparity in biomedical research may improve society's confidence in science and provide support for growing future research investments.
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.