ArticleCancer research2017
Methods of Academic Course Planning for Cancer Biology PhD Students to Enhance Knowledge of Clinical Oncology.
Article in Cancer research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A human-centered, participatory design approach to cancer research training.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Little is known about how clinical oncology concepts are taught to PhD students or the most effective methods of doing so. In this study, electronic surveys were sent to faculty and students at PhD training programs, assessing their institution's methods of clinical oncology education and their perspective on optimal approaches to clinical oncology education. Only 40.0% of students reported any clinical oncology component to their institution's training, and only 26.5% had a clinician on their graduate advisory committee. Forty-three percent of students believed that they had a good understanding for translating basic science research into clinical practice, and 77.2% of all participants believed dual degree MD/PhD students were superior to PhD students in this regard. Lectures on clinical oncology research topics were the most valuable type of experience for all participants and were also the most common type of experience utilized. Working with a clinician to develop a clinical trial with correlative endpoints was also highly valued, but was only utilized by approximately 10% of programs. Faculty rated the value of nearly all types of clinical oncology exposure significantly lower than did students. Inclusion of the approaches identified in this study is likely to enhance PhD training in oncology-related disciplines.
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.