 |
|
Nomenclature in Translational Research
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
To the Editor: In his Commentary, Dr Woolf1 identified a critical problem in the field of translational research—lack of clarity in nomenclature. Vague language conflates very different types of research and fosters definitional creep as researchers struggle to ensure that their own work falls under this umbrella. We agree that the terms T1 and T2 lack inherent meaning and should be replaced with ones that are more descriptive.
We suggest that T1 be replaced with the term preclinical research. We define this as research designed to yield a tool or an intervention related to screening, risk assessment, prevention, diagnosis, treatment, or rehabilitation that will be suitable for clinical evaluation within 10 years. Long-term preclinical translational research would have a time frame of 5 to 10 years. Short-term preclinical translational research would be less than 5 years. Basic research that has an anticipated time frame beyond 10 years would not . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Kevin Fiscella, MD, MPH
kevin_fiscella@urmc.rochester.edu
Department of Family Medicine
Nancy M. Bennett, MD, MS
Department of Medicine
Peter G. Szilagyi, MD, MPH
Department of Pediatrics
University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry
Rochester, New York
RELATED ARTICLE
The Meaning of Translational Research and Why It Matters
Steven H. Woolf
JAMA. 2008;299(2):211-213.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
RELATED LETTERS
Nomenclature in Translational Research
Ian D. Graham and Jacqueline Tetroe
JAMA. 2008;299(18):2149.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Nomenclature in Translational Research—Reply
Steven H. Woolf
JAMA. 2008;299(18):2149-2150.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
