Analysis of recurrent research pathways for assessing and improving effectiveness in life sciences laboratories
Balas, E. A.; Patel, C.; Ewing, B.; Patel, N.; McCoy, T. C.; Wise, S.; Abdelgawad, Y. H.
Show abstract
BackgroundLife sciences research often turns out to be ineffective. Our aim was to develop a method for mapping repetitive research processes, detecting practice variations, and exploring inefficiencies. MethodsThree samples of R&I projects were used: companion diagnostics of cancer treatments, identification of COVID-19 variants, and COVID-19 vaccine development. Major steps involved: defined starting points, desired end points; measurement of transition times and success rates; exploration of variations, and recommendations for improved efficiency. ResultsOver 50% of CDX developments failed to reach market simultaneously with new drugs. There were significant variations among phases of co-development (Bartlett test P<0.001). Length of time in vaccine development also shows variations (P<0.0001). Similarly, subject participation indicates unexplained variations in trials (Phase I: 489.7 ({+/-}461.8); Phase II: 857.3 ({+/-}450.1); Phase III: 35402 ({+/-}18079). ConclusionAnalysis of repetitive research processes can highlight inefficiencies and show ways to improve quality and productivity in life sciences.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Mapping the coevolution, leadership and financing of research on viral vectors, RNAi, CRSPR/Cas9 and other genomic editing technologies 94%
- Acceptance and Attitudes Toward COVID-19 Vaccines: A Cross-Sectional Study from Jordan 93%
- Analysis of the Health Economics Portfolio Funded by the National Institutes of Health in Response to Published Guidance 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Budget Impact Analysis Of The Introduction Of Ranibizumabs Biosimilar To The Jordanian Joint Procurement System. 93%
- Vaccine Confidence and Hesitancy at the start of COVID-19 vaccine deployment in the UK: An embedded mixed-methods study 92%
- Health Belief, Planned Behavior, or Psychological Antecedents: What predicts COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy better among the Bangladeshi Adults? 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- ChAdOx1 n-COV-19 Vaccine Side Effects Among Health Care Workers in Trinidad and Tobago 93%
- Essential Workers’ COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy, Misinformation and Informational Needs in the Republic of North Macedonia 93%
- Immunogenicity and adverse events of priming with inactivated whole SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (CoronaVac) followed by boosting the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Codon Deoptimization of Multispecific Biologics Reduces Mispairing During Transient Mammalian Protein Expression 88%
- Monitoring group activity of hamsters and mice as a novel tool to evaluate COVID-19 progression, convalescence and rVSV-ΔG-spike vaccination efficacy 88%
- Mass Generation, Neuron Labelling and 3D Imaging of Minibrains 87%
Similar papers in this journal
- The Influence of Covid-19 Vaccine on Daily Cases, Hospitalization, and Death Rate in Tennessee: A Case Study in the United States 92%
- Google Trends as a predictive tool for COVID-19 vaccinations in Italy: a retrospective infodemiological analysis 91%
- In-silico development of a method for the selection of optimal enzymes using L-asparaginase II against Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia as an example. 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.