ReviewClinical and translational science2022
A public-private collaboration model for clinical innovation.
Review in Clinical and translational science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Serendipity to Precision: Integrating AI, Multi-Omics, and Human-Specific Models for Personalized Neuropsychiatric Care.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Global trends and health system impact on polycystic ovary syndrome: a comprehensive analysis of age-stratified females from 1990 to 2021.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2025Article
- A public-private collaboration model for clinical innovation.Clinical and translational science · 2022Review
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
Launched in May 2012 as part of the New Therapeutic Uses program, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS)' National Institutes of Health (NIH)-Industry Partnerships initiative fostered collaboration between pharmaceutical companies and the biomedical research community to advance therapeutic development. Over the 10-year life of the initiative, the industry partners included: AstraZeneca; AbbVie (formerly Abbott); Bristol-Myers Squibb; Eli Lilly and Company; GlaxoSmithKline; Janssen Pharmaceutical Research & Development, L.L.C.; Pfizer; Sanofi; and Mereo (out licensed assets). The initiative provided researchers at academic medical centers with a rare opportunity to propose clinical trials to test ideas for new therapeutic uses for a selection of clinic-ready and often previously proprietary experimental pharmaceutical assets that were provided by industry partners. Here, we describe the process by which collaborations between pharmaceutical companies with viable experimental assets and academic researchers with ideas for new uses of those assets were established; and how NCATS/NIH funding supported not only phase I and II clinical trials as well as any nonclinical studies needed before testing in a new patient population, it also provided an opportunity for testing innovative outcome measures for proof-of-concept trials. Although the program did not demonstrate improved success rates for phase II clinical trials, this collaboration model leverages the strengths of each party and with a focus toward evaluating an innovative outcome measure, could be used to reduce patient burden and trial costs, and improve patient engagement.
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.