↓ Skip to main content

Hurdles in Basic Science Translation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Hurdles in Basic Science Translation
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, July 2017
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2017.00478
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christina J. Perry, Andrew J. Lawrence

Abstract

In the past century there have been incredible advances in the field of medical research, but what hinders translation of this knowledge into effective treatment for human disease? There is an increasing focus on the failure of many research breakthroughs to be translated through the clinical trial process and into medical practice. In this mini review, we will consider some of the reasons that findings in basic medical research fail to become translated through clinical trials and into basic medical practices. We focus in particular on the way that human disease is modeled, the understanding we have of how our targets behave in vivo, and also some of the issues surrounding reproducibility of basic research findings. We will also look at some of the ways that have been proposed for overcoming these issues. It appears that there needs to be a cultural shift in the way we fund, publish and recognize quality control in scientific research. Although this is a daunting proposition, we hope that with increasing awareness and focus on research translation and the hurdles that impede it, the field of medical research will continue to inform and improve medical practice across the world.

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 25%
Student > Master 6 17%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Professor 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 9 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 11%
Neuroscience 4 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 14 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 19 July 2017.
All research outputs
#14,945,861
of 22,988,380 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#5,270
of 16,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,121
of 314,952 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#94
of 251 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,988,380 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,283 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 314,952 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 251 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.