ArticleCancers2025
Procedural Physician-Scientists as Catalysts for Innovation in Team Science and Clinical Care.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.