↓ Skip to main content

Lost in Translation: The Gap in Scientific Advancements and Clinical Application

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Lost in Translation: The Gap in Scientific Advancements and Clinical Application
Published in
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fbioe.2016.00043
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joseph S. Fernandez-Moure

Abstract

The evolution of medicine and medical technology hinges on the successful translation of basic science research from the bench to clinical implementation at the bedside. Out of the increasing need to facilitate the transfer of scientific knowledge to patients, translational research has emerged. Significant leaps in improving global health, such as antibiotics, vaccinations, and cancer therapies, have all seen successes under this paradigm, yet today, it has become increasingly difficult to realize this ideal scenario. As hospital revenue demand increases, and financial support declines, clinician-protected research time has been limited. Researchers, likewise, have been forced to abandon time- and resource-consuming translational research to focus on publication-generating work to maintain funding and professional advancement. Compared to the surge in scientific innovation and new fields of science, realization of transformational scientific findings in device development and materials sciences has significantly lagged behind. Herein, we describe: how the current scientific paradigm struggles in the new health-care landscape; the obstacles met by translational researchers; and solutions, both public and private, to overcoming those obstacles. We must rethink the old dogma of academia and reinvent the traditional pathways of research in order to truly impact the health-care arena and ultimately those that matter most: the patient.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 131 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 16%
Researcher 20 15%
Student > Master 15 11%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Professor 7 5%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 36 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 25 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 6%
Engineering 4 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 3%
Other 27 20%
Unknown 45 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 January 2023.
All research outputs
#2,434,989
of 23,505,669 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#291
of 7,107 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,385
of 341,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#2
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,505,669 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,107 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,225 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.