ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Moving from Bench to Bedside: A Social History of Actionability in Biomedicine.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: As medicine grows increasingly technological and scientific, biomedical researchers working to bring new knowledge to bear on clinical practice face a key question: when is a new intervention or treatment ready for clinical use? Because this is both a technical and ethical dilemma, it is crucial to examine the social history of how different approaches to this question emerge and the values or assumptions they embed. Methods: We examine the rise and proliferation of an increasingly common framework for assessing the value of new biomedical data or technology, "actionability," through a computational analysis of published scientific literature referencing this and related terms, including topic modeling and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term analysis of over 7000 scientific abstracts indexed in PubMed. Results: We find that actionability, as a term, began appearing more commonly in published literature in the mid-2000s, and proliferated throughout the 2010s and into the 20s. While originally used primarily in research on healthcare quality and implementation, the concept's rise in popularity is ultimately driven by uptake in the fields of clinical genetics and oncology. Conclusions: The adoption of actionability in these fields suggests that actionability as a conceptual framework may be most valuable to areas of translational medicine seeking to make sense of increasing amounts of data and technological innovation with differing levels of scientific validity and clinical utility. Recognizing this value, we also caution that actionability drives our attention primarily towards whether a test or piece of information can lead to action, not whether that action has proven benefits. As clinicians and researchers face difficult questions about how to sort through growing amounts of data to generate knowledge that can have a real impact on patient health, empirical bioethics should play a key role in analyzing the trade-offs and impacts of different approaches.
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.