46 Do we know it when we see it? Moving toward a systematized identification of translational science

Objectives/Goals: We aim to establish a systematic approach to distinguish translational science from translational research. Our goal is to create a simple tool that would enable individuals with different backgrounds and levels of expertise to readily determine whether a study truly features translational science. Methods/Study Population: Participants were recruited from a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program hub and randomly divided into 2 groups. One group was asked, with minimal guidance, to categorize whether publications described translational science or translational research. The group met to resolve disagreements and identify key indicators and challenges in determining whether a study involves translational science. They provided input on a set of guiding questions intended to facilitate the identification of translational science. The second group did not participate in discussion or tool development. Both groups reviewed a new set of publications, using the tool to guide their assessments. Results/Anticipated Results: Based on publication assessments, we will assess the percent agreement among reviewers in each group for each publication and across the set. We anticipate that the first group will exhibit higher agreement for its second round of review than its first, owing to the benefit of discussion with colleagues and provision of guiding questions. We anticipate that the tool will also promote higher agreement among the second group in their first round of review. We predict that both groups will exhibit high rates of agreement when reviewing with the support of guiding questions. Discussion/Significance of Impact: This study will help us understand interpretations of translational science, a term that has sparked debate and disagreement within CTSA hubs. If successful, the guiding questions will provide CTSAs a tool to improve training, proposal responsiveness, and review for translational science projects.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
Published
2025-03-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2024.731
Primary Topic
Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

46 Do we know it when we see it? Moving toward a systematized identification of translational science

Melissa Vaught, Paul J. Martin
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
article

46 Do we know it when we see it? Moving toward a systematized identification of translational science

Melissa Vaught, Paul J. Martin
article en

Abstract

Objectives/Goals: We aim to establish a systematic approach to distinguish translational science from translational research. Our goal is to create a simple tool that would enable individuals with different backgrounds and levels of expertise to readily determine whether a study truly features translational science. Methods/Study Population: Participants were recruited from a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program hub and randomly divided into 2 groups. One group was asked, with minimal guidance, to categorize whether publications described translational science or translational research. The group met to resolve disagreements and identify key indicators and challenges in determining whether a study involves translational science. They provided input on a set of guiding questions intended to facilitate the identification of translational science. The second group did not participate in discussion or tool development. Both groups reviewed a new set of publications, using the tool to guide their assessments. Results/Anticipated Results: Based on publication assessments, we will assess the percent agreement among reviewers in each group for each publication and across the set. We anticipate that the first group will exhibit higher agreement for its second round of review than its first, owing to the benefit of discussion with colleagues and provision of guiding questions. We anticipate that the tool will also promote higher agreement among the second group in their first round of review. We predict that both groups will exhibit high rates of agreement when reviewing with the support of guiding questions. Discussion/Significance of Impact: This study will help us understand interpretations of translational science, a term that has sparked debate and disagreement within CTSA hubs. If successful, the guiding questions will provide CTSAs a tool to improve training, proposal responsiveness, and review for translational science projects.

Journal of Clinical and Translational ScienceVol. 9(s1)
University of Washington (US), Fred Hutch Cancer Center (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 94%
Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.