ArticleThe Journal of technology transfer2025
Paths towards commercialization: evidence from NIH proof of concept centers.
Article in The Journal of technology transfer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Bridging research and practice: a systematic review of Academic entrepreneurship in healthcare and its emerging research agenda.BMC health services research · 2026Pooled it
- Strategic Planning for a Digital Health Innovation Hub at a Saudi Academic Medical Center: Qualitative Case Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
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
Proof of Concept Centers (PoCCs) are important mechanisms for supporting technology transfer and enabling the commercialization efforts of academic innovators. However, there is limited evidence on the success of PoCCs in supporting projects towards commercialization, especially in the life sciences. We examine how principal investigator (PI) and technology characteristics impact initial actions and commercialization strategies within a PoCC. Through a unique data set that tracks 275 biomedical technologies funded by the National Institutes of Health Centers for Accelerated Innovations (NCAI) and Research Evaluation and Commercialization Hubs (REACH), we find evidence of differing priorities and strategies based on characteristics of the Principal Investigator such as gender, commercialization experience, and title, as well as the type of biomedical technology. We also find empirical evidence that greater levels of PoCC support is associated with a higher frequency of licensing agreements. These findings contribute to a broader understanding of the role PoCCs have in promoting academic commercialization in the biomedical technology sector and insight into the determinants of varying trajectories of projects funded by PoCCs in pursuit of commercialization.
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.