ArticleFrontiers in research metrics and analytics2025
Topic analysis on publications and patents toward fully automated translational science benefits model impact extraction.
Article in Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program, funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), has supported over 65 hubs, generating 118,490 publications from 2006 to 2021. Measuring the impact of these outputs remains challenging, as traditional bibliometric methods fail to capture patents, policy contributions, and clinical implementation. The Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) provides a structured framework for assessing clinical, community, economic, and policy benefits, but its manual application is resource-intensive. Advances in Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) offer a scalable solution for automating benefit extraction from large research datasets. Objective: This study presents an NLP-driven pipeline that automates the extraction of TSBM benefits from research outputs using Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) topic modeling to enable efficient, scalable, and reproducible impact analysis. The application of NLP allows the discovery of topics and benefits to emerge from the very large corpus of CTSA documents without requiring directed searches or preconceived benefits for data mining. Methods: We applied LDA topic modeling to publications, patents, and grants and mapped the topics to TSBM benefits using subject matter expert (SME) validation. Impact visualizations, including heatmaps and t-SNE plots, highlighted benefit distributions across the corpus and CTSA hubs. Results: Spanning CTSA hub grants awarded from 2006 to 2023, our analysis corpus comprised 1,296 projects, 127,958 publications and 352 patents. Applying our NLP-driven pipeline to deduplicated data, we found that clinical and community benefits were the most frequently extracted benefits from publications and projects, reflecting the patient-centered and community-driven nature of CTSA research. Economic and policy benefits were less frequently identified, prompting the inclusion of patent data to better capture commercialization impacts. The Publications LDA Model proved the most effective for benefit extraction for publications and projects. All patents were automatically tagged as economic benefits, given their intrinsic focus on commercialization and in accordance with TSBM guidelines. Conclusion: Automated NLP-driven benefit extraction enabled a data-driven approach to applying the TSBM at the scale of the entire CTSA program outputs.
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.