Cited by 104Health and Medical Research Impactsscientometrics and bibliometrics researchResearch, Science, and Academia

Increasing disparities between resource inputs and outcomes, as measured by certain health deliverables, in biomedical research

Open access
Bowen, Anthony, Casadevall, Arturo·2015·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Significance: The general public funds the vast majority of biomedical research and is also the major intended beneficiary of biomedical breakthroughs. We show that increasing research investments, resulting in an increasing knowledge base, have not yielded comparative gains in certain health outcomes over the last five decades. We demonstrate that monitoring scientific inputs, outputs, and outcomes can be used to estimate the productivity of the biomedical research enterprise and may be useful in assessing future reforms and policy changes. A wide variety of negative pressures on the scientific enterprise may be contributing to a relative slowing of biomedical therapeutic innovation. Slowed biomedical research outcomes have the potential to undermine confidence in science, with widespread implications for research funding and public health.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1504955112

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bowen, A., & Casadevall, A.
Affiliations
Albert Einstein College of Medicine (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2015-08-17
Volume
112
Issue
36
Pages
11335-11340
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2130727984
Cited by
104
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 4
FWCI
14.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
HHS | National Institutes of Health (T32 GM007288, R37 AI033142)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health and Medical Research Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
Keywords
research efficiency, life expectancy, new chemical entities, FDA drug approval, NIH funding, publication productivity, citation counts, research quality, reductionism, scientific specialization
MeSH terms
Efficiency, Forecasting, Health Resources, Humans, National Institutes of Health (U.S.), Public Health, Publications, United States, Biomedical Research, Translational Research, Biomedical

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review