Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34124598›Full record

ArticleFASEB bioAdvances2021

Advancing science and education through a novel collaboration platform between the University of Michigan and Peking University Health Science Center.

Joseph C Kolars, Qimin Zhan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in FASEB bioAdvances, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Joseph C KolarsUniversity of Michigan Medical School Ann Arbor MI USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2603-188X
Qimin ZhanPeking University Health Science Center Beijing China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research in China has been advancing over the past decade with increasing investments from government and private entities. Collaboration with Chinese investigators and those in the United States has also increased as reflected in the growth of scientific papers with Chinese authors. Collaborations are more commonly based on faculty-to-faculty relationships which can be challenged by institutional or governmental policies. This paper reports on an institution-to- institution collaboration, the Joint Institute for Translational and Clinical Research initiated in 2010 between the University of Michigan Medical School and Peking University Health Science Center, to enable and support collaborative faculty-initiated research. Concomitant education and training programs have also been co-developed. Beginning in 2011, 190 proposals from faculty-to-faculty partnerships have been submitted from which 59 have been selected for funding. These projects have involved over 138,000 patient subjects and resulted in 86 peer-reviewed publications to date. Pilot data has been leveraged to secure $27.3 million dollars of extramural funding outside of China. Faculty and trainee exchanges take place regularly including an annual symposium with mechanisms to link faculty who are seeking partnerships by utilizing each other's complementary strengths and resources. As the collaboration enters its second decade, both institutions believe that the model offers a unique platform to promote faculty-initiated collaborative research. Next steps include funding studies in prioritized scientific themes, and promoting access to high-quality cohorts to attract industry partners and to develop sustainable financial models.

Indexed as

biomedical researchChinainternational educational exchangesupport of researchtranslational medical research

Identifiers

PMID34124598
PMCPMC8171302

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.