Leveraging real-world data to investigate multiple sclerosis disease behavior, prognosis, and treatment

Randomized controlled clinical trials and real-world observational studies provide complementary information but with different validity. Some clinical questions (disease behavior, prognosis, validation of outcome measures, comparative effectiveness, and long-term safety of therapies) are often better addressed using real-world data reflecting larger, more representative populations. Integration of disease history, clinician-reported outcomes, performance tests, and patient-reported outcome measures during patient encounters; imaging and biospecimen analyses; and data from wearable devices increase dataset utility. However, observational studies utilizing these data are susceptible to many potential sources of bias, creating barriers to acceptance by regulatory agencies and the medical community. Therefore, data standardization and validation within datasets, harmonization across datasets, and application of appropriate analysis methods are important considerations. We review approaches to improve the scope, quality, and analyses of real-world data to advance understanding of multiple sclerosis and its treatment, as an example of opportunities to better support patient care and research.

Data collection as a barrier to personalized medicine

Basic life science research holds the promise of personalizing medical care. However, translation steps from the laboratory to the bedside are not trivial. Results from clinical research are difficult to replicate in part because study cohorts are poorly defined phenotypically. Here, we discuss how computer technology can improve the collection of clinical data to enable translation of insights from basic science to validated clinical guidelines.

Detection and characterization of translational research in cancer and cardiovascular medicine

Background

Scientists and experts in science policy have become increasingly interested in strengthening translational research. Efforts to understand the nature of translational research and monitor policy interventions face an obstacle: how can translational research be defined in order to facilitate analysis of it? We describe methods of scientometric analysis that can do this.

Methods

We downloaded bibliographic and citation data from all articles published in 2009 in the 75 leading journals in cancer and in cardiovascular medicine (roughly 15,000 articles for each field). We calculated citation relationships between journals and between articles and we extracted the most prevalent natural language concepts.

Results

Network analysis and mapping revealed polarization between basic and clinical research, but with translational links between these poles. The structure of the translational research in cancer and cardiac medicine is, however, quite different. In the cancer literature the translational interface is composed of different techniques (e.g., gene expression analysis) that are used across the various subspecialties (e.g., specific tumor types) within cancer research and medicine. In the cardiac literature, the clinical problems are more disparate (i.e., from congenital anomalies to coronary artery disease); although no distinctive translational interface links these fields, translational research does occur in certain subdomains, especially in research on atherosclerosis and hypertension.

Conclusions

These techniques can be used to monitor the continuing evolution of translational research in medicine and the impact of interventions designed to enhance it.