ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)2018
Network-based assessment of collaborative research in neuroscience.
Article in Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bibliometric and visual analysis of overlooked fatigue in kidney transplantation: a narrative review.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Social network analysis of biomedical research growth at a primarily undergraduate institution.Proceedings. International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence · 2022Article
- Using bibliometrics to evaluate outcomes and influence of translational biomedical research centers.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2022Article
- A large National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre facilitates impactful cross-disciplinary and collaborative translational research publications and research collaboration networks: a bibliometric evaluation study.Journal of translational medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe purpose of this study was to describe collaborative research in neuroscience within the context of the Center for Neurodegeneration and Translational Neuroscience (CNTN), a Center of Biomedical Research Excellence supported by the National Institute of General Medical Science. Drawing upon research on the science of team science, this study investigated the way that interactions around research emerged over the course of establishing a new research center. The objectives were to document changes in research activity and describe how human research support infrastructure functioned to support the production of science.
methodsSocial network analyses were used to model coauthorship relationships based on publication histories from baseline (2014) through the current grant year (2017) for key personnel (n = 12), as well as survey data on collaborative engagement among CNTN members (n = 59).
resultsExponential random graph models indicated that over time, CNTN members were increasingly likely to form coauthorship relationships. Community detection algorithms and brokerage analyses suggested that the CNTN was functioning as intended to support scientific development. DISCUSSION: Assessment of team science efforts is critical to evaluating and developing appropriate support structures that facilitate successful team science efforts in translational neuroscience.
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.