Garth Sundem

Welcome to this episode of the Medical Affairs Professional Society podcast series, Elevate. I’m your host, Garth Sundem, Editorial Director at MAPS. And today we have a very special episode recapping the top ten publications of 2025. You’ll see what we mean by “top.” It’s not only the number of reads or citations. Joining us are Dr. Mike Taylor, Head of Data Insights at Altmetric. Carlos Areia, Senior Data Scientist at Altmetric. Cary Brubaker, independent consultant, Medical Affairs and Communications Strategy at Carrie Brubaker, Medical Affairs Consultancy. And James Dathan, Associate Director, BBU Publications at AstraZeneca. So, Mike, we did this last year. I remember the ground rules. Um, this year we have slightly different ground rules for picking these publications. Can you tell us what they are?

Mike Taylor

Absolutely. The core idea is the same. So this is, you know, what we might call a mixed methodology, where we’re not just looking for the top numbers, we’re looking for things that are also interesting, that that catch the eye. But the candidates have to be associated data releases. They have to be, uh, enterprise affiliated publication. And then we look at how those are, are, are, are making their impact, how they’re being heard, how they’re being shared. And we’ve picked out ten really fascinating publications to talk about. We’re going to we’ve we’ve sort of settled on a, on a standard five and Kera’s going to introduce those. Okay. Have a little bit of a discussion then, then we’ve got some real wild cards to talk about.

Garth Sundem

Okay. So um, classic five. Uh, it sounds like Carrie’s going to lead us through the classic five. What what makes them classic. And let’s let’s hear about these five.

Carrie Brubaker

Yeah that’s great. Thank you so much Garth. So pleased to be here. And those of you in the audience who joined us for the 2024 top ten will recognize some of these theme areas for the next couple of minutes. I’m going to walk you through three publications that showed of different kinds that showed top Altmetric scores. And then I’m going to spend a little bit of time looking at sentiment, namely among audience segments, top performing by sentiment among physicians and among nurses. So let’s go ahead and get started. The first publication that I will be that I’ll Be Running by You has a top Altmetric score as a trial publication. And this is Tirzepatide as compared with semaglutide for the treatment of obesity. As we know, this is a big topic this year. Authors Aaron et al. In the New England Journal of Medicine, published this paper in May, and it contrasts the two best known GLP one drugs for obesity in the absence of diabetes, finding that the injectable tirzepatide was more effective in weight loss and waste reduction. Although both work well twenty years ago, the therapeutic area drug treatments for obesity essentially didn’t exist. The introduction of GLP one drugs has been a key driver, and the two drugs studied here have had a dramatic effect on the therapeutic area and on the publication space. Publication numbers have increased by a factor of three or more. All metrics performance similar. These are significant products being compared in this paper, and given the prevalence of obesity worldwide, we shouldn’t be surprised by the performance. But let’s take a moment to reflect on how many millions of people have read about these drugs in the mainstream media. Heard podcasts, read, blog posts, read and shared on social media with family in their networks. It’s a very real example of the power that publications have.

Garth Sundem

Okay, so this is a big paper on big drugs in a big journal with a big score. I see why that is one of the top ten publications of twenty twenty five. And I also see why that would be one of the classic five. That makes absolute sense. Where are we going from here, Carrie?

Carrie Brubaker

We’re going to our next top Altmetric performer, which we initially referred to as a clinical trial registry. But actually, this is an ongoing trial. Uh, I’m very I’m very interested to share that this top performer for twenty twenty five is the same as the one for twenty twenty four, namely a phase two randomized study of adjuvant immunotherapy with the personalized cancer vaccine mRNA for one five seven and pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab alone after complete resection of high risk melanoma. This is the Keynote nine four two study. The purpose of this trial was to assess whether postoperative adjuvant therapy with an mRNA drug and pembrolizumab improves recurrence free survival compared to Pembro alone in participants with a complete resection of their cutaneous melanoma and a high risk of recurrence. Of note, this is a phase two trial, so though most of the attention is not from twenty twenty five, this trial still gets to retain its crown as top Altmetric score for ongoing clinical trial. Why is this important? Well, usually clinical trial registrations get little to no attention. But as we can as we can understand from the title itself, it’s an exploration of Of combining mRNA technology and immunotherapy, somewhat novel approaches in the treatment of cancers of this type and other solid tumors. This trial is interesting as well, because it has an impressive Altmetric score of fifteen sixty eight at the time of this recording, which is a lot higher than the respective publication published in The Lancet in January of last year. The Altmetric score is actually less than half of that, if not a third or a fourth.

Garth Sundem

Huh. Interesting. I mean, it’s the gift that keeps on giving because the trial is is still going. That’s so interesting. And last year in our top ten, did we cover the Lancet or did we cover the trial itself I wonder? And if we don’t remember that’s fine.

Carrie Brubaker

But we covered the, the the trial description we did last year as well. So so this is a continuation. This remains in our top ten and this year in our classic five.

Garth Sundem

Um, this one seems to have more sort of scientific interest. The GLP one study, you can see that it might have been patient interest. Certainly clinician interest driving that. Um Altmetric score in NEJM do you feel like the combination of mRNA and immunotherapy, um, is it scientists reading this paper and or clinicians and patients? Why is this thing the gift that keeps on giving? And actually here, let’s bring in another voice. If someone else wants to comment, please, please feel free. Why is this the gift that keeps on giving?

Well, I’m going to say. Go for it. Because the the most of the attention is still, uh, from that initial virality. Like initially it’s, uh, from what I recall from last year, uh, it was a lot of clinicians and, and researchers. And then obviously once it gets viral, it gets to the general public that spreads even further. Okay. But this is a spread. It’s not only like on social media. You have like a lot of other types of attention, such as news and blogs and so on. And most of that attention is still up on the years. Not not in twenty twenty five. Uh, I think one of the interesting things is that there was no trial in no new trial that could, uh, take the crown of of keynote oh nine two. Yeah, I guess, well, maybe next year. Yeah, maybe next year. Yeah. Although, you know what we can’t ignore in this when we talk about virality is the fact that mRNA treatments are in the news. I’m going to talk a little bit about that, uh, whilst trying to avoid some of the politics of it when it comes to one of my other papers. Sounds good to me.

Garth Sundem

All right. So, Carrie, let’s go to number three in the classic five. Where are we at?

Carrie Brubaker

You bet. This one is our third top Altmetric score, but this time in the domain of the preprint. This title was released on the bioRxiv server in June of twenty twenty five, with the lead author of Camillo and Camillo et al. And the title is a single factor for safer cellular rejuvenation. In this buzz generating preprint, the authors describe so-called SB zero zero zero, the first single gene intervention to rejuvenate cells from multiple germ layers. That is, different types of cells with efficacy driving the very famous Yamanaka factors. Yamanaka factors are four proteins that can reprogram adult somatic cells, thus fully differentiated cells back into induced pluripotent stem cells. SB zero zero zero rejuvenates human fibroblasts as shown by the reversal of cellular epigenetic clocks, a lowered transcriptomic age of single cells, and a decreased gene expression associated with senescence without activating pluripotency. SB zero zero zero treatment maintains transcriptomic and functional measures of fibroblast identity. Furthermore, the authors describe that rejuvenation generalizes to another cell type, keratinocytes with potency matching or exceeding the Yamanaka factors. So why is this important? The inappropriateness or even danger of induced pluripotency for therapeutic applications is well described in a desirable contrast. This preprint introduces cellular rejuvenation without pluripotency, creating a lot of buzz, particularly on social media. However, we do want to caution the audience that peer review of these data their experimental replicability and a comprehensive phenotypic and safety assessment of the treated cells are all needed.

Garth Sundem

Okay, so let’s make stem cells and maybe let’s make stem cells that don’t cause cancer. Um, that is very, very exciting.

Carrie Brubaker

That’s exactly right.

Garth Sundem

And and it seems like this wild west of pre-prints. I don’t mean to demean them, but, um. So. So maybe a big splash from preprint. Come comes out. Let’s make stem cells. It’s a better way to do it. One factor instead of four. And maybe without some of the risks. Um, would you be watching then for a peer reviewed paper to follow this?

Carrie Brukaber

That’s exactly right. And then tracking the impact of that peer reviewed paper to to truly see if this stays in a top five sort of situation, to be sure. And um, we were were I a researcher involved in these in these types of efforts? Let’s say not a physician or a clinician, but also a researcher involved. I would be very interested to follow the different types of cell types that this technology is applied to. Yeah. Very cool. Uh, all right. So we’ve got some, uh, evergreen studies hanging on from last year. We’ve got some new things bursting onto the scene, uh, even from the land of preprints. Carrie, where are we at for number four?

Carrie Brubaker

Yeah, for for both four and five, we’re going to be exploring a different angle, which is related to sentiment. This fourth paper I’m actually going to introduce on behalf of Mike, who will be returning to it in just a few moments. It’s patient specific, in vivo gene editing to treat a rare genetic disease, published in the New England Journal of Medicine. And I’m actually going to move on to our fifth paper, the top sentiment among the nurse Audience segment published in Nature Medicine just recently in October with the first author of this paper is titled titled Varicella Zoster Virus Reactivation and the Risk of Dementia. This longitudinal analysis has demonstrated a significant association between the reactivation of varicella zoster virus, that is the virus behind herpes zoster or shingles, and increased dementia risk. The researchers utilized health records from over one hundred million individuals in the United States, controlling for nearly four hundred covariates to ensure their findings. They observed that recurrent herpes zoster episodes are linked to higher likelihood of developing dementia compared to a single episode. Further vaccination against herpes zoster was associated with a decrease of risk of dementia, with the protective effect diminishing over time as with waning vaccine efficacy. The analysis further revealed that individuals at higher risk of reactivation, such as older adults and women, derive greater benefits from vaccination. Overall, these findings implicate varicella zoster virus reactivation as a modifiable risk factor for dementia, highlighting the potential of vaccination strategies in prevention of this devastating disease. So, Garth, at the time of this podcast recording for online attention, including social media and news outlets, this article is in the ninety ninth percentile, ranked four hundred and eleventh out of over three hundred and thirty thousand articles of a similar age across all journals. Because this research proposes varicella zoster virus vaccine as protective against dementia risk, it’s no surprise that nurses as an audience segment, would define top sentiment for this publication as healthcare professionals working in relevant primary, emergent and elder care settings.

Garth Sundem

Yeah, and Carrie, I remember this from our recording last year that I’m glad you’re pronouncing all these things and not me. Uh, you do such a good job. Okay. You’re very welcome. We are in an active space. We are in dementia. It is in the news. People care about it. And we’re looking at one hundred million other people in here. I can see why this would be a classic top five. Um, let’s let’s go to sentiment then. This is an interesting area to have a top five. So, Mike, are we circling back to number four with with your sentiment piece here?

Mike Taylor

Um, we’re going to we’re going to shortly. Um, I just wanted to, you know, really draw a line and point to what we’re talking about here with the zoster paper. Last year, I think it was the, uh, the VMs management paper that nurses had most highly ranked. And the guy just really want to celebrate the role that nurses have in our in our, um, in our healthcare armory, if you like, in terms of, you know, managing preventative medicine, managing symptoms and so on. You know, it’s really easy to get carried away with the science here. These are solid papers and they’re it’s great to see them being celebrated by, you know, the very demographic who should be who should be concerned about them.

Garth Sundem

Okay. Let let me ask. So then would most Medical Affairs professionals looking at a top ten list of publications in twenty twenty five? Uh, we’re we’re going to go some interesting places here in a second. Uh, would most Medical Affairs professionals have picked these as a classic top five when they looked through? Would would most Medical Affairs professionals have said, oh yeah, that that sounds about like the top five for twenty twenty five.

Mie Taylor

Yeah, I, I think two or three of them. Absolutely. And when it comes to the next five that we’re going to be talking about, I think again, you know, there are some you know, Carrie talked about the the rise of obesity treatment, drug, drug treatments. Yeah. Seeing how, how the, how the industry is, is reacting to that and working with those drugs and how that messaging is being is being committed to a broader public, broader group of people is is really exciting. And it has been in many ways, it has been a year of groundbreaking science. A couple of the papers we’re going to talk about coming up are literally groundbreaking science. Really, really super exciting time to be to be working in our industry. Um, and but more and more, there are different ways of talking about things. There are different platforms. As the proliferation of platforms. This time last year, we wouldn’t have been talking about blue Sky. Um, we wouldn’t have been talking about podcasts. And both of those things are part of the top ten this year. There are new things for Medical Affairs folk to be, uh, engaging with and thinking about. Well, take us there. So let’s let’s go to number six here. That’s that’s Carlos’s.

Carlos Areia

All right. So yeah. So I have so we’re getting into the field of wild cards. So that standard if we continue with the podcast next year there will be here. Uh, but then we thought, like, each one of us would pitch, you know, one or two, uh, extra studies with our own criteria and briefly explained, explain the criteria and say why. And this, like Mike was following the last year, we couldn’t talk about blue Sky or include podcasts. And, you know, things are evolving, things are changing, and we need to be dynamic with these things. So what’s important is here might not be important next year and vice versa. So, uh, with that I want to pitch, uh, two categories, which is the top clinical guideline mentions. And this is papers that are published in twenty twenty five that were mentioned by guidelines in twenty twenty five as well. And for that, we get back to oral semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in high risk type two diabetes. This was also published in the New England Journal of Medicine. It was funded by Novo Nordisk, and it was by McGuire et al. In twenty twenty five, uh, and basically, uh, proved that oral semaglutide significantly reduced the risk of adverse events in cardiovascular diseases. Uh, individuals with type two diabetes and, um, after after, after. Okay. I’m going to put it basically, uh, chronic kidney disease, um, and cardiovascular complications compared to placebo. And um, basically, this was interesting for me because very few clinical trials can get guideline mentions that fast, and it usually takes at least one to three years for the first guideline mentioned. So this paper was published in March, and by June it already had two guideline mentions, one by the American College of Cardiology and also by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. So, uh, following what you mentioned before, Garth, I know it’s a big trial, a big journal, but in this case, it was also quickly translated into impact. That might be big or not, but it was fast.

Garth Sundem

And you said a really important word there, Carlos, and that’s impact. Seems like we are transitioning now from reach and resonance as our measurement of impact into a new impact factor, not to coin a term, um, and that is guidelines, how they affect guidelines, um, and that that is impactful even beyond how many people read it, cite it Spread it. Um, if your publication changes guidelines, that’s one of the top ten of of of twenty twenty five. Okay, that makes sense to me. And what’s what’s your next one? I see Congress is Carlos. Is that where we’re going next?

Carlos Areia

Exactly. So the next one is Congresses. And so we’re playing with some Congress data. And that allowed to do this and I, I, I must say that I’m quite biased on this one because I failed one of the criteria. So it is not industry affiliated. But I had to add this because it, it was the most viral paper in Asco and a few other conferences as well. It was released during ASCO twenty twenty five. And this was the structured exercise after adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer, also published in the New England Journal of Medicine. And for me, well, I’m biased because I’m a physician by background before getting into data science and all these things. Um, and this was published, published in June during Asco, like I said, and this was a phase three RCT that found that three year structured exercise program after chemotherapy for colon cancer significantly improved disease free survival and suggested longer overall survival compared to health education only group. And after eight years, the exercise group, uh, had eighty percent five year disease free survival rate compared to seventy four ish in the health education group. So this is a massive improvement on, you know, just, well, not just but, you know, just exercise. Uh, for me, it should be on the top because it’s this was like the buzz during Asco twenty two. This was this was by far the most viral one discussed during Asco. And it’s still the Altmetric is still growing. I think it’s like you know five thousand or four thousand now. Uh, and it’s still being discussed and used in a lot of, uh, news and social media and other attention. and but I think it’s it’s curious, you know, you know, like, you know, we have all the major industry, uh, companies there you have and, you know, a non-drug trial being the boss at Asco. For me, I think it needed to be mentioned.

Garth Sundem

Okay. And and specifically your criteria for this were metrics showing that this is the most viable from Asco. So this was it was all the conferences.

Carlos Areia

Basically I’ve gathered all the data from the conferences that I had. And besides the Altmetric score, I was looking at the most the most amount of number of posts inside these conferences. And that’s how I found this paper.

Garth Sundem

Oh, cool. And I wonder, uh, in how many years does another conference beat the virality of something from Asco? I imagine that, uh, most often the most viral Congress presentation would, would come from Asco, but that’s for another, um, for another look. All right. It’ll be an Alzheimer’s one. It’ll be an Alzheimer’s one. Oh yeah. It would be or. Yep, it would be. You’re absolutely right. Okay, let’s I want to make sure we get to all these.

Mike Taylor

I’ve got two for you, Garth. I’ve got two. Uh, so at the time when we looked at the number, this is the paper that had the highest Altmetric score going. So it was about four and a half thousand. This is the paper, um, et al. New England Journal of Medicine again. They’ve had a very good year. Patient specific in vivo gene editing to treat a rare genetic disease. So in short a baby is born. It has a rare and debilitating metabolic condition, typically fifty percent mortality very quickly very soon after birth. And it was treated with a customized lipid nanoparticle delivered base editing therapy. Really, really interesting. This one went from zero to four and a half thousand within about a week of being published. Enormous amounts of attention, including a citation to the lead authors Wikipedia page, which is interesting. Don’t often see that. Um, but it’s kind of interesting to me that it really was all there in the first two weeks. It’s gone quite quiet after that. And it was also interesting to look at the digest of what people were saying about it, because unfortunately, although there were a number of stories that were talking about the hopes for treating rare genetic disorders very early on, um, and there was some really good positive coverage about that. There was also quite a heavy weight, um, number of stories that had more of a political tinge to it, um, bringing things like RNA, RNA, vaccines, um, and genome gene editing and all sorts of things. So some quite confused conversations about this, I think, um, and certainly tinged with, uh, some politics, which I think would have been better avoided. But the other one I wanted to talk about is, um, an area that doesn’t normally get very much attention at all. So. Finora. Oh, dear, I should have pronounced this phenomenon with empagliflozin in chronic kidney disease and type two diabetes. Agarwal et al. Another New England Journal of Medicine one. So this is a study that looked at a combined treatment with these two drugs, which outperformed either individual one for chronic kidney disease, CKD. And I’ve plucked this one out not only because it’s got a high score eight hundred and fifty three when we looked at it, but because of the number of podcasts that are associated with it. So podcasts as a data source are new for me. They’ve really taken off in the last eighteen months. They’ve gone from, you know, a minor thing to being something that we’ve been calculating in Altmetric for a few months now, um, really accelerating. There are eight different podcasts that talked about this paper. And for me, what was really interesting is that there’s cardiology podcasts, there’s diabetes podcasts. There’s uh, there’s there’s kidney podcasts, and they’re all finding something to talk about in this paper. And that, to me really suggests something very interesting about podcasts and how narrowly focused they can be, but also how, yeah, how diverse there is and how much interest there is in that. Now, normally when we think about, you know, what you might call an interdisciplinary paper, these things normally, normally, um, struggle to get the kind of attention that you might expect. But this one has done, you know, this the number of discussions on this really outstanding. Um, and then I’m going to pass over to James. All right. James.

James Dathan

Sorry. Yeah. Thanks, Mike. Um, unlike Carlos, who sort of tiptoed around the rule book, I basically hit the rule book up and decided to throw it out the window and just went with whatever I felt like. Um, so my subtlety once again came shining through. So the first one I want to talk about is, uh, seventy five percent of us scientists who answered a nature poll considered leaving. This was published by wits et al. In nature. As you can see, it’s it’s fairly sort of drop the mic and walk out the room kind of standard of of article. Um, it, it really stood out because the, the sentimental analysis on it is, is the word extreme is not is not out of place here. Um, a lot of things we tend to look at sort of seventy, eighty percent plus positive. This has only got forty three percent positive. But remarkably, a third of all its attention is actively negative. Um, which really sort of stands out as a, as a huge kind of dichotomy across the article. It’s got enormous attention. Nearly ten thousand, um, Altmetric score. And it just shows how it’s split opinions of people supporting and yet still showing a really high overall score. It’s the second biggest article of twenty twenty five, but it really demonstrates the importance you have to look at the score alongside the sentiment analysis, Because if you just look at the score, it’s brilliant. Everybody loves it. It’s fantastic. But actually there’s a huge swathe of of information in there that a lot of people would scope over and miss. Um, which leads me nicely into looking at other alternatives to my second to my second wild card, um, which once again remains firmly removed from our initial rulebook, um, which was Blue Skies takeover seventy percent of nature poll respondents used platform. Uh, this is Beaver et al. And again published in nature. Um, again, to me this was just so ironic and entertaining. I, I had to kind of flag it, because if you look at the actual title of the article and then when you look at the actual metrics from this, it’s got over seven thousand two hundred comments on blue Sky, which, which is more than twenty five times the engagement via X. Um, and I think it sort of best sums up with kind of this sort of article, This sort of engagement just shows that the times they are a changing.

Garth Sundem

Okay, the Times They Are a-Changin. Uh, Carrie, do you want to tell us about the last paper in this list?

Carrie Brubaker

Those of you in the audience will be pleased to learn that the following publication also wins this group’s award for the longest title of our selections this year. So bear with us. This is external validation of a digital pathology based, multimodal, artificial intelligence derived prognostic model in patients with advanced prostate cancer starting long term androgen deprivation therapy, a post hoc ancillary biomarker study of four phase three randomized controlled trials of the Stampede platform protocol. Parker et al. Published this paper in June in The Lancet Digital Health. This study explores a model which integrates digitized prostate biopsy images with clinical variables such as age, PSA level, tumor stage, and nodal status to generate a risk score for prostate cancer mortality. Thousands of patients data were analyzed in cooperation encompassing several types of disease, and the MMA score derived was independently associated with mortality at five years, which outperformed traditional prognostics like Gleason score and tumor stage, and the model effectively stratified patients into risk groups. Garth. As we know, twenty twenty five saw accelerating deployment of artificial intelligence technologies in therapeutic product development, diagnostics, prognostics, and clinical care clinical care. Highlighting this takeaway on the year, this publication reiterates that indeed, the types of prostate biopsy samples that we take from patients do contain prognostic information on their own. But combining disease burden data of this type with assessments in the algorithm here. Improved disease prognostication. Furthermore, not long after publication, the US FDA approved this technology as a software as a medical device, according to the company. This establishes a new product code category for future AI powered digital pathology risk stratification tools. Thus, the top performance that we observed in this category.

Garth Sundem

All right, the future is here. The future is here. And I can see why this is on the list. Uh, if if for no other reason than people have to deal with it. What do we do with this tool? How do we integrate this into our existing understanding? And I imagine that that discussion and argument, um, alone, you know, in addition to the power of the tool, could drive, um, interest in this paper. So we have some things on our list that are just huge. We’ve got the glps, we’ve got some things on our list that are changing guidelines. Um, we’ve got some things on our list that have, you know, wonderful sentiment. And then we have some really interesting ones, like the controversy, James, that that that you brought up, um, you know, seventy five percent of us scientists who answered the nature poll consider leaving. Um, and we have some new evolving ways to, to reach people. Um, we’ve got blue Sky, we’ve got podcasts. So we’ve got some new and next. And what in the world to do with it that is driving interest in these best publications as well? Let let’s dig in just a little bit. Well, let me ask what jumps out at this group from this list. What what do you see here? Uh. I’m sorry. Go for it.

James Dathan

Thank you. I’m going to jump in and say, I think the the ability you have now to really dig into the metrics and the numbers it altmetrics has really grown, and I don’t work for them, I’m not sponsored by them, etc. etc. but it’s really grown to a point now where you can dig properly into what the numbers mean and what they represent, rather than it just being here’s a score, and it’s a little bit like Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Forty two means what? Whereas now you’ve got the podcast, you’ve got the blue sky, you’ve got the X, you’ve got so many things around it that add context, and people can really demonstrate a deeper level of understanding. And we are moving much, much closer to figuring out what that word impact actually means in publications. I think that is an absolute north star of us deciding across the industry.

Garth Sundem

What is it? How do we measure it? What are the important guiding factors in it? And Mike, go ahead. You were going to say.

Mike Taylor

Yeah, I was I was just going to make a, make a very similar point to James that we’ve we’ve gone from a situation maybe just even four or five years ago where when we talked about impact, we weren’t really sure what we were talking about. Um, it’s really clear to me that there is impact of many different flavors here. So when we talk about what success looks like for one of our publications, we have to provide it with more context. It’s not just being published in a top tier journal. Um, although most of the most of the papers here this year are in top tier journals, you know, when we can see a publication hitting guidelines so quickly within a few months of publication, uh, or reaching people who are looking after elderly folk like nurses. You know, this this is impact for a very real time. That’s changing people’s quality of life. Um, and changing the way that we do healthcare and, and medical care. And similarly, you know, with Carlos’s paper on, um, on structured exercise after, after treatment for colon cancer prolonging life. I think these are incredibly valuable pieces of communication. And I think it really underscores just how how demanding this job is, because it’s not just about placing an article within a journal and then fighting your way through numerous revisions, as we all are deeply familiar with. It’s also about how that article has a life beyond the journal and who’s talking about it, and how on earth we gather together all that data to make sense of it. So many such a proliferation. Like I said a year ago, we wouldn’t have been talking about podcasts. We wouldn’t have been talking about blue Sky now that we are. These are additional data points to be concerned about. Carrie, one of the things that’s so enjoyable about doing this type of analysis and doing this type of analysis together is in a group is looking at all of the different facets exactly like James and Mike have elevated. And one more that I’d like to add, perhaps as we’re coming to the close of our discussion, is that although we uncovered that the journals featured in this year’s top ten list tend to be considered perhaps high impact or very high impact. We were also very pleased to uncover that many of them, maybe even the majority of them, are publicly available or open access. So this then also speaks to the increasing availability, the increasing, let’s say, democracy of access to published data and what this is going to mean for us in a time of significant clinical development in partnership with technology development.

Garth Sundem

Mhm. Okay. Let’s let’s close on the democratization of of data because we are significantly over already by Carlos, Carrie and James. Thanks for joining us. This is absolutely fascinating MAPS members. Don’t forget to subscribe and we hope you enjoyed this episode of the Medical Affairs professional society podcast series elevate.