ArticleScientific reports2024
Dynamics of technology emergence in innovation networks.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Who made the mRNA vaccine? Measuring division of labor in therapeutic innovation.Nature biotechnology · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
To create the next innovative product, participants in science need to understand which existing technologies can be combined, what new science must be discovered, and what new technologies must be invented. Knowledge of these often arrives by means of expert consensus or popularity metrics, masking key information on how intellectual efforts accumulate into technological progress. To address this shortcoming, we first present a method to establish a mathematical link between technological evolution and complex networks: a path of events that narrates innovation bottlenecks. Next, we quantify the position and proximity of documents to these innovation paths. The result is an innovation network that more exhaustively captures deterministic knowledge flows with respect to a marketed innovative product. Our dataset, containing over three million biomedical citations, demonstrates the possibility of quantifying the accumulation, speed, and division of labour in innovation over a sixty-year time horizon. The significance of this study includes the (i) use of a purpose-generated dataset showing causal paths from research to development to product; (ii) analysis of the innovation process as a directed acyclic graph; (iii) comparison between calendar time and network time; (iv) ordering of science funders along technology lifecycles; (v) quantification of innovative activities' importance to an innovative outcome; and (vi) integration of publication, patent, clinical trial, regulatory data to study innovation holistically.
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.