arXiv subjects

Nick McNally

Publications and source records attributed to Nick McNally.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Quantifying the impact of clinical-academic collaborations

Academic collaboration is of self-evident value but requires a quantitative representation to be optimally guided by policy. No established methodological approach to such representation exists. Here we introduce a general framework of graphical and bibliometric analysis of open data for the task of quantifying the impact of academic networks, with NIHR Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) clinical-academic partnerships in England as the prototype. We define publication-level identities for the 20 English BRCs based on the conjunction of authors from each BRC's partner institutions. Drawing on bibliometric and administrative records, we characterise the graphical properties of each network, estimate what the university adds to the hospital's papers, what the partnership adds to the papers of relatively infrastructure-poor collaborating institutions, and how that gain depends on existing infrastructure. We apply our framework to the NIHR UCLH/UCL BRC as an exemplar. UCLH/UCL authored 20,985 network papers from April 2007, in collaboration with 9,868 distinct external partners over the whole record, forming the most central node of the graph of networks across England. University co-authored papers exhibited 1.6 times the field-weighted citation impact (FWCI) of hospital-only papers, and were 2.1 times as likely to be cited by a patent. Across 60 of the exemplar's most partnered with UK healthcare organisations, the benefit rose from 1.8 times where local NIHR infrastructure activity was densest to 3.4 times where it was sparsest, while impact without the exemplar varied little. Academic networks can be robustly identified from open data, enabling comparative analysis of collaborative impact. Applied to NIHR BRCs, the approach enables quantification of the impact across networks and reveals that benefit is most pronounced where infrastructure is least developed.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2021

Deep forecasting of translational impact in medical research

The value of biomedical research--a $1.7 trillion annual investment--is ultimately determined by its downstream, real-world impact. Current objective predictors of impact rest on proxy, reductive metrics of dissemination, such as paper citation rates, whose relation to real-world translation remains unquantified. Here we sought to determine the comparative predictability of future real-world translation--as indexed by inclusion in patents, guidelines or policy documents--from complex models of the abstract-level content of biomedical publications versus citations and publication meta-data alone. We develop a suite of representational and discriminative mathematical models of multi-scale publication data, quantifying predictive performance out-of-sample, ahead-of-time, across major biomedical domains, using the entire corpus of biomedical research captured by Microsoft Academic Graph from 1990 to 2019, encompassing 43.3 million papers across all domains. We show that citations are only moderately predictive of translational impact as judged by inclusion in patents, guidelines, or policy documents. By contrast, high-dimensional models of publication titles, abstracts and metadata exhibit high fidelity (AUROC > 0.9), generalise across time and thematic domain, and transfer to the task of recognising papers of Nobel Laureates. The translational impact of a paper indexed by inclusion in patents, guidelines, or policy documents can be predicted--out-of-sample and ahead-of-time--with substantially higher fidelity from complex models of its abstract-level content than from models of publication meta-data or citation metrics. We argue that content-based models of impact are superior in performance to conventional, citation-based measures, and sustain a stronger evidence-based claim to the objective measurement of translational potential.

cs.DL↗