ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021
Team Science in Precision Medicine: Study of Coleadership and Coauthorship Across Health Organizations.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInterdisciplinary collaborations bring lots of benefits to researchers in multiple areas, including precision medicine.
objectiveThis viewpoint aims at studying how cross-institution team science would affect the development of precision medicine.
methodsPublications of organizations on the eHealth Catalogue of Activities were collected in 2015 and 2017. The significance of the correlation between coleadership and coauthorship among different organizations was calculated using the Pearson chi-square test of independence. Other nonparametric tests examined whether organizations with coleaders publish more and better papers than organizations without coleaders.
resultsA total of 374 publications from 69 organizations were analyzed in 2015, and 7064 papers from 87 organizations were analyzed in 2017. Organizations with coleadership published more papers (P<.001, 2015 and 2017), which received higher citations (Z=-13.547, P<.001, 2017), compared to those without coleadership. Organizations with coleaders tended to publish papers together (P<.001, 2015 and 2017).
conclusionsOur findings suggest that organizations in the field of precision medicine could greatly benefit from institutional-level team science. As a result, stronger collaboration is recommended.
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.