ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2026
Steps toward developing an algorithm to facilitate recognition of translational science.
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. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In preparing for our Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) UM1 application, we recognized the need to develop a shared understanding of the distinctions between translational science (TS) and translational research (TR). We describe our efforts to develop and evaluate the reliability of a concise instrument that investigators and reviewers could use to distinguish between TS and TR. Methods: Groups of faculty and staff individually reviewed published translational studies to determine whether the project involved TS and, separately, TR. One group ( Results: The overall kappa coefficients in the three sets of TS determinations (two by the first group and one by the second group) were 0.61, 0.33, and 0.18, respectively. The overall kappa coefficients in the three sets of TR determinations were 0.26, 0.11, and 0.40, respectively. The median kappa coefficients for all 42 determinations were 0.39 for TS and 0.22 for TR, both indicating only fair agreement. We found no evidence that the algorithm helped to improve agreement rates. Conclusion: Our results show gaps in understanding the distinction between TS and TR among CTSA hub faculty and staff. We discuss some reasons for this gap and propose ways that could improve the recognition of TS and TR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.