Usage Information

Eulogy for the clinical research center
David G. Nathan, David M. Nathan
David G. Nathan, David M. Nathan
Published June 6, 2016
Citation Information: J Clin Invest. 2016;126(7):2388-2391. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI88381.
View: Text | PDF
Op-Ed Article has an altmetric score of 30

Eulogy for the clinical research center

Abstract

The extramural General Clinical Research Center (GCRC) program has been funded for more than 50 years, first by the National Center for Research Resources, NIH, and more recently as part of the Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) program through the newly formed National Center for Advancing Translation Sciences (NCATS). The GCRCs represent the federally funded laboratories that employ a highly trained cadre of research nurses, dietitians, and other support staff and in which generations of clinical investigators trained and performed groundbreaking human studies that advanced medical science and improved clinical care. Without the opportunity for adequate discussion, NCATS has now stopped funding these Research Centers. In this “eulogy,” we review the origins and history of the GCRCs, their contributions to the advancement of medicine, and the recent events that have essentially defunded them. We mourn their loss.

Authors

David G. Nathan, David M. Nathan

×

Usage data is cumulative from April 2024 through April 2025.

Usage JCI PMC
Text version 518 133
PDF 117 27
Citation downloads 89 0
Totals 724 160
Total Views 884
(Click and drag on plot area to zoom in. Click legend items above to toggle)

Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.

Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.

Advertisement