Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41788351›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2026

Powering evaluation and continuous improvement in translational science: Insights from the 2025 ACTS Evaluation SIG meeting.

Boris Volkov, Elias Samuels, Jessica Sperling, Denise Daudelin, Jillian Harvey, Kristi Holmes, Cathleen Kane, Claudia Lechuga, Joe Hunt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

9 authors.

Boris VolkovClinical and Translational Science Institute and Institute for Health Informatics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5412-3028
Elias SamuelsMichigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6725-3382
Jessica SperlingClinical and Translational Science Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2443-3762
Denise DaudelinClinical and Translational Science Institute, Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6758-7753
Jillian HarveySouth Carolina Clinical and Translational Research Institute, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6814-8226
Kristi HolmesNorthwestern University Clinical and Translational Sciences (NUCATS) Institute, Chicago, IL, USA.
Cathleen KaneClinical and Translational Science Institute, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-4494-355X
Claudia LechugaThe Harold and Muriel Block Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Montefiore-Einstein, Bronx, NY, USA.
Joe HuntIndiana Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Indianapolis, IN, USA.

Funding

University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute (UMN CTSI)UM1TR004405 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI Bruce R Blazar, Damien A Fair · 2023 to 2026
$30.8M
NCATS NIH HHS UM1 TR004405
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The 2025 Evaluation Special Interest Group (SIG) meeting at the Association for Clinical and Translational Science conference brought together clinical and translational science (CTS) professionals to address evolving challenges in translational science evaluation. The meeting presentations and discussions addressed concept mapping for commonly used metrics, continuous quality improvement (CQI) practices, translational science impact evaluation, and evaluator toolkit development. Key themes and lessons learned included the tension between institution-specific and network-wide evaluation goals, the need for standardized yet flexible evaluation frameworks, and persistent barriers including limited staffing capacity and data ownership challenges. Facilitators identified included diverse CQI approaches, the evolving frameworks, and collaborative evaluation practices. Convened during a time of increasing research funding uncertainty and accountability, the meeting underscored the urgency of strengthening evaluation capacity to sustain the impact of CTS, highlighting both the enduring value of heterogeneous evaluation approaches and the critical need for coordinated CTS evaluation strategies to demonstrate impact and secure continued funding support.

Indexed as

capacity buildingClinical and translational sciencecontinuous quality improvementevaluationimpact

Identifiers

PMID41788351
PMCPMC12957658

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.