ArticleWellcome open research2026
The Discovery Research Platform for Medical Humanities responds to the Wellcome Trust's report on
Article in Wellcome open research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Discovery Research Platform for Medical Humanities responds to the Wellcome Trust's report onWellcome open 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This open letter from Durham University's Discovery Research Platform for Medical Humanities responds to the Wellcome Trust's 2025 report on archives, manuscripts, and material culture (AMCs) in health research. We applaud the report's recognition of AMCs as foundational infrastructures for discovery research and its emphasis on pluralistic values, and we use this letter to expand upon three critical dimensions. First, we reinforce the point that medical humanities work with AMCs generates transformational biomedical and cultural knowledge capable of effecting real-world reform, exemplified by recent challenges to race-based lung capacity evaluations citing Platform research. Second, we urge caution regarding digitisation initiatives, particularly concerning A.I. training using existing collections, emphasising the need for ethical consideration of environmental impact, intellectual property, and the perpetuation of structural inequities in digital infrastructure. Third, we advocate for expansive definitions of health-related material culture beyond biomedical paradigms, encompassing artistic collections and emphasising the irreplaceable value of sensory and affective experiences in hands-on collections work. We draw attention to the tensions inherent in the use of digital surrogates, which, though vital for accessibility, cannot fully replace original collections. We conclude by emphasising the Platform's commitment to further collaborative work to transform the report's recommendations into sustainable practice.
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.