ArticlePNAS nexus2025
Face-to-face or face-to-screen: A quantitative comparison of conferences modalities.
Article in PNAS nexus, 2025. 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.
- A Pre-Post Study of the Feasibility, Acceptability and Benefits of a Co-Design Approach for the Development of a Digital Suicide Prevention App for International Students.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Quality and Safety Management of Advanced Medical Technologies in Homecare in The Netherlands: A Qualitative Study on Consensus Development Regarding Approaches and Continuing Professional Education.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The power of social talk: A longitudinal network analysis of conversations in fostering interdisciplinary collaboration.Journal of clinical and translational science · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic forced a societal shift from in-person to virtual activities, including scientific conferences. As society navigates a "new normal," the question arises as to the advantages and disadvantages of these alternative modalities. We introduce two new comprehensive datasets enabling direct comparison between virtual and in-person conferences: the first, from a series of nine small conferences, encompasses over 12,000 pairs of potential scientific collaborators across five virtual and four in-person meetings on a range of scientific topics; the expressed goal of these conferences is to create novel collaborations. The second dataset, from a series of three large physics conferences, encompasses >250,000 possible pairs of scientific collaborators. Our study provides quantitative insight into benefits and drawbacks of virtual and in-person conferences for team formation, community building, and engagement. We demonstrate the causal role of formal interaction on team formation across both modalities. Our findings show that formal interaction impacted team formation significantly more in virtual settings, while informal interaction played a larger role at in-person conferences as compared with virtual. We show that a nonlinear memory model for predicting team formation based on interaction outperforms seven alternative models. The model suggests that prior knowledge and interaction time contribute to catalyzing collaborations in both settings. Our results underscore the critical responsibility of organizers for optimizing professional interactions, whether virtual or in-person.
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.