ArticleJournal of translational medicine2024
Exploring the connection between EU-funded research and methodological approaches: insights from a retrospective analysis.
Article in Journal of translational medicine, 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.
- Bridging the prevention gap: funding distribution and methodological shifts in prevention-focused biomedical research under EU framework programmes.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOver the last two decades, substantial investments have been directed towards supporting fundamental and applied research in Alzheimer's disease (AD), breast cancer (BC), and prostate cancer (PC), which continue to pose significant health challenges. Recently, the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission (EC) conducted a retrospective analysis to examine the major scientific advancements resulting from EU-funded research in these disease areas and their impact on society.
methodsBuilding upon this analysis, our subsequent investigation delves into the methodological approaches-both animal and non-animal models and methods-employed in AD, BC, and PC research funded under past EU framework programs (FP5, FP6, FP7, and H2020), and explored the notable research outputs associated with these approaches.
resultsOur findings indicate a prevalent use of animal-based methodologies in AD research, particularly evident in projects funded under H2020. Notably, projects focused on drug development, testing, or repurposing heavily relied on animal models. Conversely, research aimed at clinical trial design, patient stratification, diagnosis and diagnostic tool development, lifestyle interventions, and prevention-outputs with potential societal impact-more frequently utilised non-animal methods. Advanced investigations leveraging imaging, computational tools, biomarker discovery and organ/tissue chip technologies predominantly favoured non-animal strategies.
conclusionsThese insights highlight a correlation between methodological choices and the translational potential of research outcomes, suggesting the need for a reconsideration of research strategy planning in future framework programs.
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.