BackgroundScientists and experts in science policy have become increasingly interested in strengthening translational research. Efforts to understand the nature of translational research and monitor policy interventions face an obstacle: how can translational research be defined in order to facilitate analysis of it? We describe methods of scientometric analysis that can do this.MethodsWe downloaded bibliographic and citation data from all articles published in 2009 in the 75 leading journals in cancer and in cardiovascular medicine (roughly 15,000 articles for each field). We calculated citation relationships between journals and between articles and we extracted the most prevalent natural language concepts.ResultsNetwork analysis and mapping revealed polarization between basic and clinical research, but with translational links between these poles. The structure of the translational research in cancer and cardiac medicine is, however, quite different. In the cancer literature the translational interface is composed of different techniques (e.g., gene expression analysis) that are used across the various subspecialties (e.g., specific tumor types) within cancer research and medicine. In the cardiac literature, the clinical problems are more disparate (i.e., from congenital anomalies to coronary artery disease); although no distinctive translational interface links these fields, translational research does occur in certain subdomains, especially in research on atherosclerosis and hypertension.ConclusionsThese techniques can be used to monitor the continuing evolution of translational research in medicine and the impact of interventions designed to enhance it.
Collaborative forms of work such as extended networks, expert groups, and consortia increasingly structure biomedical activities. They are particularly prominent in the cancer field, where procedures such as multicenter clinical trials have been instrumental in establishing the specialty of oncology, and subfields such as cancer genetics, where bioclinical activities—for example, testing for breast and ovarian cancer (BRCA) genes and follow-up interventions—are predicated on the articulation of a number of tasks performed by new clinical collectives. In this article, we examine the founding and development of a French bioclinical collective—the Groupe Génétique et Cancer (GGC)—that coordinates and structures the activities of most French actors in cancer genetics and operates simultaneously in the clinical, research, and regulatory domains. To examine the group’s structure and dynamics, the article combines information gathered through traditional fieldwork methods with information elicited from a coauthorship and semantic-network analysis of the publications of GGC members from 1969 to 2001.
Objectives: The first aim of this study was to investigate the information-seeking behaviour (ISB) of women attending cancer genetic consultations at which the possibility of BRCA testing is considered. We focused here specifically on ISB apart from the cancer genetic consultation, i.e. on what complementary sources of information about genetic testing were consulted and what factors were involved in this behaviour. The second aim was to study the role of the social network used by the patients to collect various opinions on which to base their decisions about being tested. Methods: A prospective cohort study (2000–2002) was therefore carried out on all women attending a single cancer genetic clinic in France after a BRCA1/2 analysis had been proposed. Closed questionnaires were administered before and after the second cancer genetic consultation. The purpose of this consultation was to confirm the patient’s decision to be tested. Results: Results were analysed in 108 subjects (mean age 47 years, SD 11 years; 74% affected by breast/ovarian cancer). Prior to the 2nd consultation, 35.2% of the women had actively looked for information about BRCA1/2 testing, as compared to 25.0% afterwards. After multivariate adjustment by logistic regression, the pre-consultation ISB was found to be associated with greater satisfaction with the information about the psycho-social consequences of genetic testing [adjusted odds ratio (ORadj) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01–1.06] (scale from 0 to 100) and about the certainty of being a gene carrier (ORadj 3.04, 95% CI 1.16–7.98). Those who actively looked for complementary information were also more often accompanied at the consultation by a family member (ORadj 4.82, 95% CI 1.85–12.56). The other variables tested (depression, coping, socio-demographic and medical characteristics) were not significant (p > 0.05). The role of the social network in the decision making process was perceived as being less helpful when the persons consulted tended to have neutral or unfavourable opinions about genetic testing. Conclusions: Few women actively sought complementary information about BRCA genetic testing in addition to the cancer genetic consultation. Those who did so differed from the others in terms of their social network and their satisfaction with the consultation. The cancer geneticist is the key actor in women’s decision making about genetic testing.
This communication proposes to depict the dynamic of the conceptual area of IFSA, and to bring a support to a discussion about the future of the IFSA community. It presents the results of a textual and scientometric analysis of the descriptors and concepts of the IFSA community. A general view of the knowledge of the community is delivered on the basis of the data mining of the corpus built up with the communications of the 6 previous IFSA Symposia. The empirical study details the key concepts and domains of investigation and their dynamics throughout the previous Symposia. This work has been realized in relation with a group of experts of the IFSA scientific domain. In order to contextualize the scientific positioning of the IFSA community, this study also delivers a set of scientometric mappings in order to analyze the corpus that have been extracted from international databases (CAB Abstract, Web of Science) based on the identification of the main IFSA conceptual keywords with IFSA experts. In conclusion the dynamic of the concepts and the positioning of the IFSA community is discussed.
This article traces the history of research on resistance to drug therapy in oncology using scientometric techniques and qualitative analysis. Using co-citation analysis, we generate maps to visualize subdomains in resistance research in two time periods, 1975–1990 and 1995–2010. These maps reveal two historical trends in resistance research: first, a shift in focus from generic mechanisms of resistance to chemotherapy to a focus on resistance to targeted therapies and molecular mechanisms of oncogenesis; and second, a movement away from an almost exclusive reliance on animal and cell models and toward the generation of knowledge about resistance through clinical trial work. A close reading of highly cited articles within each subdomain cluster reveals specific points of transition from one regime to the other, in particular the failure of several promising theories of resistance to be translated into clinical insights and the emergence of interest in resistance to a new generation of targeted agents such as imatinib and trastuzumab. We argue that the study of resistance in the oncology field has thus become more integrated with research into cancer therapy – rather than constituting it as a separate domain of study, as it has done in the past, contemporary research treats resistance as the flip side to treatment, as therapy’s shadow.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.