Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42375221›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2026

Steps toward developing an algorithm to facilitate recognition of translational science.

Paul J Martin, Brian E Saelens, Theodore Johnson, Mark Harniss, Tumaini R Coker, Erin Abu-Rish Blakeney, Nina Isoherranen, Tong Sun, Nisha Bansal, Stephanie J Lee and 3 more

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

13 authors.

Paul J MartinInstitute of Translational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Brian E SaelensInstitute of Translational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6998-6339
Theodore JohnsonInstitute of Translational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Mark HarnissInstitute on Human Development and Disability, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Tumaini R CokerInstitute of Translational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Erin Abu-Rish BlakeneyInstitute of Translational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4902-181X
Nina IsoherranenInstitute of Translational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Tong SunInstitute of Translational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Nisha BansalInstitute of Translational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Stephanie J LeeInstitute of Translational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
John AmoryInstitute of Translational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Naomi KakuPlant Sciences and Plant Pathology, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, USA.
Melissa VaughtInstitute of Translational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7627-8330

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

clinical and translational science awardhub operationsresearch assessmenttranslational researchTranslational science

Identifiers

PMID42375221
PMCPMC13312354

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.