Unexpectedness in medical research

IF 7.5 1区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Research Policy Pub Date : 2024-07-22 DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2024.105075
Yasemin Aslan , Ohid Yaqub , Bhaven N. Sampat , Daniele Rotolo
{"title":"Unexpectedness in medical research","authors":"Yasemin Aslan ,&nbsp;Ohid Yaqub ,&nbsp;Bhaven N. Sampat ,&nbsp;Daniele Rotolo","doi":"10.1016/j.respol.2024.105075","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Whether research funding is targetable is one of the central unresolved questions of science policy. A particular question is how often research aimed at understanding one disease or problem spills over to others. This has been a perennial topic of debate at the world's largest single funding body of biomedical research, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). Critics of the agency's priority-setting process have repeatedly called for better alignment between funding and disease burden, and patient advocates for specific diseases for more funding for their causes. In response, opponents of planning have argued that research in one area frequently leads to advances in others. In this study, we provide new evidence to inform these debates by examining the extent to which research funding (grants) in one scientific or disease area leads to research findings (publications) in another. We used the NIH's Research, Condition, and Disease Categorization (RCDC) to identify categories for NIH grants awarded between 2008 and 2016. We applied machine-learning to map text to these categories and use this model to categorize publications resulting from these grants. We categorized over 1.2 million publications, resulting from over 90,000 grants. We found that 70 % of the publications have at least one RCDC category not in its grant, which we termed ‘unexpected’ categories. On average, 40 % of categories assigned to a publication were unexpected. After adjusting for similarity across some of the RCDC categories by empirically clustering the categories, we found 58 % of the publications had at least one unexpected category and, on average, 33 % of publication categories were unexpected. Our results suggest that disease-orientation and clinical research were less likely to be associated with spillovers. Grants resulting from targeted requests for applications were more likely to result in publications with unexpected categories, though the magnitude of the differences was relatively small.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48466,"journal":{"name":"Research Policy","volume":"53 8","pages":"Article 105075"},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733324001240/pdfft?md5=6e695eb051ad150f4ca3096447f184b0&pid=1-s2.0-S0048733324001240-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Policy","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733324001240","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Whether research funding is targetable is one of the central unresolved questions of science policy. A particular question is how often research aimed at understanding one disease or problem spills over to others. This has been a perennial topic of debate at the world's largest single funding body of biomedical research, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). Critics of the agency's priority-setting process have repeatedly called for better alignment between funding and disease burden, and patient advocates for specific diseases for more funding for their causes. In response, opponents of planning have argued that research in one area frequently leads to advances in others. In this study, we provide new evidence to inform these debates by examining the extent to which research funding (grants) in one scientific or disease area leads to research findings (publications) in another. We used the NIH's Research, Condition, and Disease Categorization (RCDC) to identify categories for NIH grants awarded between 2008 and 2016. We applied machine-learning to map text to these categories and use this model to categorize publications resulting from these grants. We categorized over 1.2 million publications, resulting from over 90,000 grants. We found that 70 % of the publications have at least one RCDC category not in its grant, which we termed ‘unexpected’ categories. On average, 40 % of categories assigned to a publication were unexpected. After adjusting for similarity across some of the RCDC categories by empirically clustering the categories, we found 58 % of the publications had at least one unexpected category and, on average, 33 % of publication categories were unexpected. Our results suggest that disease-orientation and clinical research were less likely to be associated with spillovers. Grants resulting from targeted requests for applications were more likely to result in publications with unexpected categories, though the magnitude of the differences was relatively small.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
医学研究中的意外
研究经费是否具有针对性是科学政策中尚未解决的核心问题之一。一个特别的问题是,旨在了解一种疾病或问题的研究多大程度上会波及其他疾病或问题。这一直是世界上最大的生物医学研究单一资助机构--美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)--长期争论的话题。对该机构确定优先事项程序的批评者一再呼吁更好地协调资金与疾病负担之间的关系,而特定疾病的患者倡导者则要求为他们的事业提供更多资金。作为回应,规划的反对者认为,一个领域的研究往往会带来其他领域的进步。在本研究中,我们通过考察一个科学或疾病领域的研究经费(拨款)在多大程度上导致了另一个领域的研究成果(出版物),为这些争论提供了新的证据。我们利用美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)的研究、条件和疾病分类(RCDC),确定了 2008 年至 2016 年美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)拨款的类别。我们应用机器学习技术将文本映射到这些类别,并使用该模型对这些拨款产生的出版物进行分类。我们对 920 多万份出版物进行了分类,这些出版物来自 90,000 多项基金。我们发现,70% 的出版物至少有一个 RCDC 类别不在其资助范围内,我们称之为 "意外 "类别。平均而言,40% 的出版物类别出乎意料。通过对 RCDC 的一些类别进行经验聚类来调整相似性后,我们发现 58% 的出版物至少有一个意外类别,平均 33% 的出版物类别是意外的。我们的结果表明,疾病导向和临床研究不太可能与外溢效应相关联。通过有针对性的申请获得的补助金更有可能导致出版物出现意外类别,尽管差异的程度相对较小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Research Policy
Research Policy MANAGEMENT-
CiteScore
12.80
自引率
6.90%
发文量
182
期刊介绍: Research Policy (RP) articles explore the interaction between innovation, technology, or research, and economic, social, political, and organizational processes, both empirically and theoretically. All RP papers are expected to provide insights with implications for policy or management. Research Policy (RP) is a multidisciplinary journal focused on analyzing, understanding, and effectively addressing the challenges posed by innovation, technology, R&D, and science. This includes activities related to knowledge creation, diffusion, acquisition, and exploitation in the form of new or improved products, processes, or services, across economic, policy, management, organizational, and environmental dimensions.
期刊最新文献
“Meet me at the backdoor”: A multiple case study of academic entrepreneurs bypassing their technology transfer offices Governance of knowledge development in a public-private partnership: NASA's efforts to design the Space Shuttle Editorial Board Interfaces, social information processing, and diversity cascades: How board diversity influences invention output The Government Patent Register: A new resource for measuring U.S. government-funded patenting
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1