Leo Schmallenbach, Maximilian Bley, Till W. Bärnighausen, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Carolin Lerchenmüller, Marc J. Lerchenmueller
{"title":"Global distribution of research efforts, disease burden, and impact of US public funding withdrawal","authors":"Leo Schmallenbach, Maximilian Bley, Till W. Bärnighausen, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Carolin Lerchenmüller, Marc J. Lerchenmueller","doi":"10.1038/s41591-025-03923-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Evaluating whether research aligns with the global burden of disease is essential for equitable and effective scientific progress and improvement of human health. Without systematic evaluation of this alignment, science cannot respond to shifting health needs. Here we analyzed the distribution between research and disease, linking 8.6 million disease-specific publications to two decades of global disease burden data using a triangulated large language model approach. We find that since 1999, research and disease burden have seemingly become much more aligned; however, this is mainly because of regional declines in communicable disease burden, whereas the noncommunicable disease burden has increased and globalized. Meanwhile, research effort has not changed to match changes in disease burden. Our simulations suggest that without intentional alignment, the research–disease divergence will probably widen by a third over the next two decades, and be substantially accelerated by the reduction of US public funding for international research. Aligning research with health needs will require strategic investments, improved global coordination, open science policies and stronger, more equitable international partnerships to build resilience in a fragile research ecosystem. Longitudinal analyses reveal misalignment between global research efforts and disease burden; the gap is expected to widen substantially over the next two decades by the withdrawal of US public funding for international research.","PeriodicalId":19037,"journal":{"name":"Nature Medicine","volume":"31 9","pages":"3101-3109"},"PeriodicalIF":50.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.comhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-025-03923-0.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-025-03923-0","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Evaluating whether research aligns with the global burden of disease is essential for equitable and effective scientific progress and improvement of human health. Without systematic evaluation of this alignment, science cannot respond to shifting health needs. Here we analyzed the distribution between research and disease, linking 8.6 million disease-specific publications to two decades of global disease burden data using a triangulated large language model approach. We find that since 1999, research and disease burden have seemingly become much more aligned; however, this is mainly because of regional declines in communicable disease burden, whereas the noncommunicable disease burden has increased and globalized. Meanwhile, research effort has not changed to match changes in disease burden. Our simulations suggest that without intentional alignment, the research–disease divergence will probably widen by a third over the next two decades, and be substantially accelerated by the reduction of US public funding for international research. Aligning research with health needs will require strategic investments, improved global coordination, open science policies and stronger, more equitable international partnerships to build resilience in a fragile research ecosystem. Longitudinal analyses reveal misalignment between global research efforts and disease burden; the gap is expected to widen substantially over the next two decades by the withdrawal of US public funding for international research.
期刊介绍:
Nature Medicine is a monthly journal publishing original peer-reviewed research in all areas of medicine. The publication focuses on originality, timeliness, interdisciplinary interest, and the impact on improving human health. In addition to research articles, Nature Medicine also publishes commissioned content such as News, Reviews, and Perspectives. This content aims to provide context for the latest advances in translational and clinical research, reaching a wide audience of M.D. and Ph.D. readers. All editorial decisions for the journal are made by a team of full-time professional editors.
Nature Medicine consider all types of clinical research, including:
-Case-reports and small case series
-Clinical trials, whether phase 1, 2, 3 or 4
-Observational studies
-Meta-analyses
-Biomarker studies
-Public and global health studies
Nature Medicine is also committed to facilitating communication between translational and clinical researchers. As such, we consider “hybrid” studies with preclinical and translational findings reported alongside data from clinical studies.