Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40805167›Full record

ArticleCancers2025

Procedural Physician-Scientists as Catalysts for Innovation in Team Science and Clinical Care.

Sajid A Khan, Kurt S Schultz, Nita Ahuja

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Sajid A KhanDepartment of Surgery, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9897-6025
Kurt S SchultzDepartment of Surgery, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3548-3420
Nita AhujaOffice of the Dean, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI 53705, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8293-1893

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Procedural physician-scientists have made significant contributions to medicine and science, with twelve proceduralists receiving a Nobel Prize. Unfortunately, several systemic challenges have jeopardized the existence, let alone the flourishing, of procedural physician-scientists: the widening gap in the National Institutes of Health salary cap, decreasing funding from nonfederal public and private agencies, and shifting priorities among U.S. hospitals, payers, and policymakers toward relative value unit productivity-based compensation and fee-for-service models. Additional pressures include prolonged training pathways and the need to maintain clinical continuity. Adopting a team science approach may offer a powerful strategy to mitigate these competing demands, support rigorous scientific inquiry, and address the growing complexity of biomedical research. Concerted efforts by the federal government, policymakers, corporations, institutions, and procedural departments will also be crucial to restoring the vitality of this diminishing workforce.

Identifiers

PMID40805167
PMCPMC12345689

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.