ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Medicine 4.0: the era of revolutionary access.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The evolution of modern healthcare is transitioning from a reactive, disease-centered paradigm (Medicine 2.0) toward a proactive, personalised model focused on maximising healthspan (Medicine 3.0). While this shift represents a vital optimisation of medical philosophy, it remains critically incomplete. This Perspective proposes a new paradigm (Medicine 4.0) which adds a foundational third dimension to the lifespan-healthspan model: radical access to both medical services and scientific ideas. The author analyses how commercial incentives, regulatory frameworks, and market forces frequently distort the production of scientific evidence, marginalise transformative, low-cost treatments, and delay paradigm shifts. Furthermore, the author examines the dual-edged nature of emerging digital health technologies, warning that monetisation through paywalls and engagement-driven ad models risks ossifying existing public health inequalities rather than democratising care. By realigning institutional incentives and dismantling structural obstructions to inquiry, Medicine 4.0 advocates for a return to the foundational Baconian principle that scientific knowledge must serve humanity. Ultimately, the author argues that medical progress must be evaluated not merely by its technological surface area, but by its total societal volume.
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.