MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4390560881 · doi:10.1002/j.1536-4801.2001.tb07227.x

The Future of Pediatric Research Looks Bright

2001· article· en· W4390560881 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kim E. Barrett, Robert D. Baker, Philip Rosenthal, Philip M. Sherman, Hans Büller

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition · 2001
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineLibrary scienceGerontology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Six new investigators began research projects supported by Research Scholar Awards from the American Digestive Health Foundation (ADHF) in July 2000. Of these six, five were either pediatric gastroenterologists or basic scientists working in departments of pediatrics. Their areas of investigation span the whole range of science in pediatric gastroenterology and hepatology, including the cloning of a liver iron transporter (Dr. Hiromi Gunshin, Children's Hospital, Boston), the molecular basis of liver regeneration in pediatric liver disease (Dr. David Rudnick, Washington University), the basic mechanisms regulating liver cell volume (Dr. Andrew Feranchak, Children's Hospital University of Colorado), the pathogenesis of H. pylori-mediated intestinal disease (Dr. Nicola Jones, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto) and the fundamental mechanisms governing endocytosis across the intestinal epithelium (Dr. Anne Wolf, Children's Hospital, Harvard University). Each of these projects share several aspects in common, including the enthusiasm and energy of the principal investigators involved, the exciting questions being addressed, and the potential for each of these research studies to yield information that will be of direct benefit to pediatric patients with gastrointestinal and liver diseases. As chair of the Career Development Task Force of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) that interviewed the candidates for these awards, I personally can attest that the entire committee was impressed and inspired by these bright young investigators who represent the future of the pediatric subspecialty, as well as by the remaining “non-pediatrician” award winner, Dr. James Lilliard from Morehouse School of Medicine. Much has been written lately about the challenges faced by those seeking a career in biomedical investigation, particularly those who represent the endangered species of the physician-scientist. The obstacles involved in successfully establishing oneself on such a career path can be imposing for pediatric gastroenterologists, who may find themselves working in academic divisions with few colleagues and correspondingly large clinical loads. These challenges may have led some of our brightest trainees to turn away from the research track to pursue careers in practice. This is particularly sad at a time when the opportunities to translate basic advances in science into improvements in patient care have never been better. The pace of such translation only can increase in the coming years, as information from the human genome project provides new insights into the basic mechanisms of the most intractable diseases. However, it also takes much longer to become an effective and well-equipped investigator in the current era of molecular medicine. The standard three year fellowship, even if focused heavily on investigation, is unlikely to provide an M.D.-trained individual with the tools needed for an independent research career. At the same time, the fiscal pressures encountered by many, if not most, academic departments have limited the extent to which institutions can protect and nurture the careers of their junior faculty recruits. These issues underscore the importance of extramural awards that help to bridge the gap between fellowship and independent status, allowing new investigators the time they need to develop the concepts and expertise that will underpin their subsequent research efforts. The aforementioned Research Scholar Awards given by the ADHF represent the flagship program of the AGA and are targeted at newly-appointed faculty. They aim to protect new faculty from excessive clinical and teaching commitments, allowing them to focus on developing a creative research agenda. The amount awarded recently has increased in recognition of the fact that many award winners have numerous outside obligations such as loans and family needs. There also are other opportunities for research support and training. For example, the Children's Digestive Health and Nutrition Foundation has initiated Young Investigator Awards in partnership with industry. Similarly, the ADHF Fellow/Faculty Transition Award targets individuals at a somewhat earlier stage and allows them an additional period of training under the guidance of a preceptor who tutors them in state-of-the-art approaches to research questions. Several additional private foundations, as well as the National Institutes of Health, also offer career development awards, many of which are under-subscribed. Another critical factor ties together the investigators discussed in the first paragraph of this commentary. Without exception, they are the beneficiaries of excellent mentoring relationships within and outside their institutions. It probably is not an exaggeration to argue that few, if any can succeed in academia without the care and concern of an unselfish mentor. The pediatric gastroenterology community should congratulate itself on having captured such a disproportionate share of last year's ADHF Research Scholar Awards. However, we all need to look to our own day-to-day behaviors to ensure that this record continues not only for pediatricians, but also for internists and basic scientists. Those of us who have been privileged to enjoy a career in investigation have an obligation to share the accumulated wisdom we have gained regarding the unwritten rules and the vagaries of academia, grantsmanship, and research question selection. We should not let our own responsibilities distract us from this vital role, no matter how frustrating our dealings with deans, department chairs, journal editors, and study sections might be. Only by projecting a realistic yet optimistic view of the rewards of a career in basic or clinical investigation, while taking true satisfaction in the successes of our trainees in the absence of any direct personal gain, can we ensure the future of our discipline and the full realization of the current promise in biomedical science.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,020
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,029
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,104

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0200,023
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0050,007
Communication savante0,0140,013
Science ouverte0,0020,006
Intégrité de la recherche0,0100,018
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0290,010

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,028
Tête enseignante GPT0,329
Écart entre enseignants0,302 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2001
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition→Même sujetChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life→Travaux en français237 207→