Translational neural engineering: multiple perspectives on bringing benchtop research into the clinical domain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A half-day forum to address a wide range of issues related to translational neural engineering was conducted at the annual meeting of the Biomedical Engineering Society. Successful practitioners of translational neural engineering from academics, clinical medicine and industry were invited to share a diversity of perspectives and experiences on the translational process. The forum was targeted towards traditional academic researchers who may be interested in the expanded funding opportunities available for translational research that emphasizes product commercialization and clinical implementation. The seminar was funded by the NIH with support from the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago. We report here a summary of the speaker viewpoints with particular focus on extracting successful strategies for engaging in or conducting translational neural engineering research. Daryl Kipke, PhD, (Department of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Michigan) and Molly Shoichet, PhD, (Department of Chemical Engineering at the University of Toronto) gave details of their extensive experience with product commercialization while holding primary appointments in academic departments. They both encouraged strong clinical input at very early stages of research. Neurosurgeon Fady Charbel, MD, (Department of Neurosurgery at the University of Illinois at Chicago) discussed his role in product commercialization as a clinician. Todd Kuiken, MD, PhD, (Director of the Neural Engineering for Artificial Limbs at the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, affiliated with Northwestern University) also a clinician, described a model of translational engineering that emphasized the development of clinically relevant technology, without a strong commercialization imperative. The clinicians emphasized the importance of communicating effectively with engineers. Representing commercial neural engineering was Doug Sheffield, PhD, (Director of New Technology at Vertis Neuroscience, Inc.) who strongly encouraged open industrial-academic partnerships as an efficient path forward in the translational process. Joe Pancrazio, PhD, a Program Director at NIH's National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, emphasized that NIH funding for translational research was aimed at breaking down scientific barriers to clinic entrance. Vivian Weil, PhD, (Director of Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions at the Illinois Institute of Technology) a specialist on ethics in science and engineering, spoke of the usefulness of developing a code of ethics for addressing ethical aspects of translation from the bench to clinical implementation and of translation across disciplines in multi-disciplinary projects. Finally, the patient perspective was represented by Mr Jesse Sullivan. A double-arm amputee and patient of Dr Kuiken's, Mr Sullivan demonstrated the critically important role of the patient in successful translational neural engineering research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.207 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.039 | 0.049 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| Research integrity | 0.032 | 0.049 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".