Measuring the chronology of the translational process of molecular genetic discoveries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The process of technology validation and transfer of new molecular diagnostic tests towards the clinic faces challenges and needs to be improved. There is no empirical measure of the chronology and pace of technology transfer of molecular genetic discoveries. Methods We studied these for 29 molecular genetic test discoveries in order to (1) provide estimates of the timeframe between discovery of a clinical application and complete clinical implementation, and (2) compare the trajectories between different new tests to identify common patterns. We identified 11 publicly available "timestamps" for the technology transfer process ranging from discovery of the marker to use in a clinical setting. For each test selected, we searched public databases to identify available timestamps and dates. We plotted and compared trajectories of individual tests, including chronology. Results We show that there is much variability in the chronology of transfer between biomarkers. The median time between discovery of the marker and availability of the clinical test was 9.5 years (minimum 1). There was a median time of 18 years between test discovery and FDA approval (minimum 7 years), and it took a median of 17 years between discovery and the availability of a certified reference material for the 10 assays that have one (minimum 9 years). Conclusions We conclude that new molecular genetic tests take significant time between discovery and clinical implementation, and that further work is needed to pinpoint key factors, including policy and organization factors, that may allow for improving and streamlining this process.
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 | 0.027 | 0.120 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".