Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35669406›Full record

ReviewAcademic pathology2022

Rules of engagement: Promoting academic-industry partnership in the era of digital pathology and artificial intelligence.

Liron Pantanowitz, Marilyn M Bui, Chhavi Chauhan, Ehab ElGabry, Lewis Hassell, Zaibo Li, Anil V Parwani, Mohamed E Salama, Manu M Sebastian, David Tulman and 2 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Academic pathology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

12 authors.

Liron PantanowitzDepartment of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Marilyn M BuiDepartment of Pathology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.
Chhavi ChauhanAmerican Society for Investigative Pathology, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Ehab ElGabryPathology & Companion Diagnostics, Roche, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Lewis HassellDepartment of Pathology, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
Zaibo LiDepartment of Pathology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Anil V ParwaniDepartment of Pathology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Mohamed E SalamaDepartment of Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Manu M SebastianDepartment of Epigenetics and Molecular Carcinogenesis, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
David TulmanInstapath, Houston, TX, USA.
Suryanarayana VepaOffice of Strategic Alliances, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Michael J BecichDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Academic industry partnership (AIP) represents an important alliance between academic researchers and industry that helps translate technology and complete the innovation cycle within academic health systems. Despite diverging missions and skillsets the culture for academia and industry is changing in response to the current digital era which is spawning greater collaboration between physicians and businesses in this marketplace. In the field of pathology, this is further driven by the fact that traditional funding sources cannot keep pace with the innovation needed in digital pathology and artificial intelligence. This concept article from the Digital Pathology Association (DPA) describes the rules of engagement for pathology innovators in academia and for their corporate partners to help establish best practices in this critical area. Stakeholders include pathologists, basic and translational researchers, university technology transfer and sponsored research offices, as well as industry relations officers. The article discusses the benefits and pitfalls of an AIP, reviews different partnership models, examines the role of pathologists in the innovation cycle, explains various agreements that may need to be signed, covers conflict of interest and intellectual property issues, and offers recommendations for ensuring successful partnerships.

Indexed as

Academic-industry partnershipArtificial intelligenceConflict of interestDigital pathologyIndustryInnovationIntellectual propertyPatentSponsored researchUniversity

Identifiers

PMID35669406
PMCPMC9163695

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.