ArticleSpringerPlus2016
Assessment of technological level of stem cell research using principal component analysis.
Article in SpringerPlus, 2016. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn general, technological levels have been assessed based on specialist's opinion through the methods such as Delphi. But in such cases, results could be significantly biased per study design and individual expert.
findingsIn this study, therefore scientific literatures and patents were selected by means of analytic indexes for statistic approach and technical assessment of stem cell fields. The analytic indexes, numbers and impact indexes of scientific literatures and patents, were weighted based on principal component analysis, and then, were summated into the single value. Technological obsolescence was calculated through the cited half-life of patents issued by the United States Patents and Trademark Office and was reflected in technological level assessment. As results, ranks of each nation's in reference to the technology level were rated by the proposed method. Furthermore we were able to evaluate strengthens and weaknesses thereof.
conclusionsAlthough our empirical research presents faithful results, in the further study, there is a need to compare the existing methods and the suggested method.
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.