ArticleFuture healthcare journal2026
Clinical scientist in clinical bioinformatics - the under-implemented recommendation of the Topol Review?
Article in Future healthcare journal, 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.
- Decision making at the front door.Future healthcare journal · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One of the recommendations of the Topol Review was the 'expansion of Higher Specialist Scientist Training (HSST) for clinical bioinformaticians'. Freedom of Information requests show that there has been little uptake of bioinformatics trainees, both into the Scientist Training Programme and the HSST. Moreover, there is poor retention of those who completed the training, and evidence of poor appreciation of clinical scientists trained in bioinformatics. Considering that 1) the HSST programme is the only nationally recognised specialist training programme in informatics that allows entry onto an NHS-recognised specialist register, 2) the Scientist Training Programme allows trained scientists to become statutory registered healthcare professionals, 3) organisations receive funding to take up trainees; this under-implementation is hard to understand. It is unclear if NHS organisations are simply unaware of these opportunities, are not able to accept trainees, or do not appreciate the skills of healthcare scientists.
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.