Enabling Anyone to Translate Clinically Relevant Ideas to Therapies
Pharmaceutical Research, ISSN: 1573-904X, Vol: 34, Issue: 1, Page: 1-6
2017
- 1Citations
- 18Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations1
- Citation Indexes1
- CrossRef1
- Captures18
- Readers18
- 18
Article Description
How do we inspire new ideas that could lead to potential treatments for rare or neglected diseases, and allow for serendipity that could help to catalyze them? How many potentially good ideas are lost because they are never tested? What if those ideas could have lead to new therapeutic approaches and major healthcare advances? If a clinician or anyone for that matter, has a new idea they want to test to develop a molecule or therapeutic that they could translate to the clinic, how would they do it without a laboratory or funding? These are not idle theoretical questions but addressing them could have potentially huge economic implications for nations. If we fail to capture the diversity of ideas and test them we may also lose out on the next blockbuster treatments. Many of those involved in the process of ideation may be discouraged and simply not know where to go. We try to address these questions and describe how there are options to raising funding, how even small scale investments can foster preclinical or clinical translation, and how there are several approaches to outsourcing the experiments, whether to collaborators or commercial enterprises. While these are not new or far from complete solutions, they are first steps that can be taken by virtually anyone while we work on other solutions to build a more concrete structure for the “idea—hypothesis testing—proof of concept—translation—breakthrough pathway”.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84987650419&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11095-016-2039-5; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27620174; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11095-016-2039-5; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11095-016-2039-5; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11095-016-2039-5
Springer Nature
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know