Overall survival: A trusted benchmark, but not always best

The preferred clinical endpoint in oncology clinical trials, OS serves as a trusted benchmark, offering wide ranging advantages over other endpoints^[1][2]. Defined as the time from randomization to death, OS is precise, objective, and relatively easy to measure. Given its clinical robustness and patient relevance, OS is universally accepted by regulators and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies alike^[2][3].

However, in some disease settings, OS is associated with important limitations^[2]. The need for long studies makes OS an unsuitable endpoint in the case of slowly progressing and early-stage cancers, for example. Measurement of OS is also susceptible to confounding, particularly when involving multiple lines of therapies, patient crossover, and the occurrence of non-cancer related deaths. Furthermore, OS does not capture the broader priorities of patients and physicians; for example, when quality of life is a priority over prolonging survival^[2]. For pharmaceutical companies, these limitations can translate into time and financial constraints.

Alternative oncology-relevant endpoints provide opportunities to address these concerns, allowing the collection of data at earlier time points than with OS (Figure 1)^[1]. Such endpoints allow measurement of outcomes before starting subsequent therapies, giving a more direct measure of treatment efficacy. Some endpoints also offer broader value to patients too – besides being surrogate endpoints for OS, non-OS endpoints can provide standalone information, including on symptoms, function, treatment burden, and quality of life^[4].

Figure 1: Alternative oncology-relevant endpoints

Source: Modified from Delgado and Guddati 2021^[1]
Abbreviations: EQ-5D, EuroQol 5-dimensions index; NSCLC-SAQ, Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Symptom Assessment Questionnaire; PROs, patient reported outcomes.

Why aren’t alternative oncology-relevant endpoints used more widely?

Despite their potential value, alternative oncology-relevant endpoints remain underused in clinical trial design. In 2021, non-OS endpoints accounted for just 16% of primary endpoints in Phase II or Phase III oncology trials, with the most common being pathological complete response, relapse rate and disease-free survival^[5].

Major barriers to the broader adoption of alternative oncology-relevant endpoints in clinical trials include a lack of agreement on their value and the uncertainty among payers that they accurately capture treatment benefits for patients and healthcare systems^[4][6]. While regulators are generally more receptive towards non-OS endpoints, accepting measures that are reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, HTA bodies typically require validation of surrogacy^[4][6]. In general, guidelines published by HTA bodies indicate a preference for OS data or consider surrogate endpoints only where validation studies demonstrate strong correlation with survival^[6]. From a payer perspective, this caution is arguably expected; several therapies approved on the basis of improvements in outcomes such as progression-free survival (PFS) have not demonstrated OS benefits^[2]. Despite this, few agencies provide detailed methodological guidance for surrogacy validation^[7].

This uncertainty is further confounded by differences in the willingness of national HTA bodies to evaluate even well-established alternative oncology-relevant endpoints such as PFS^[6]. The resulting complexity feeds a vicious cycle: a lack of standardized methodologies for evidence generation leads to insufficient evidence to quantify the long-term benefits of non-OS endpoints, deterring HTA bodies from giving due consideration to these outcomes in decision making^[6].

Moreover, while HTA bodies continue to place particular importance on mortality, patients and clinicians often consider outcomes such as the avoidance of surgery or pain equally or more important than OS in some treatment settings^[6]. HTA bodies and payers can perceive patient reported outcomes (PROs) as more subjective, a point of difference that is reflected in the regional variations in the way PRO evidence is reviewed and considered in global HTA decision-making^[6]. This lack of alignment contributes to a lack of clarity around PRO requirements, reinforcing uncertainty among stakeholders.

Towards stakeholder alignment on alternative oncology-relevant endpoints

Overcoming the uncertainties and inconsistencies limiting broader adoption of alternative oncology-relevant endpoints requires concerted efforts from all stakeholders and a more harmonized approach towards their use^[4][6]. There is growing consensus that, by working together, the oncology community can move closer towards establishing sets of appropriate endpoints for specific cancer types and stages that have wide buy-in from regulatory authorities, reimbursement bodies, pharmaceutical developers, and patients themselves.

A key step towards this goal will be agreeing upon the endpoints that matter most to patients, which will almost certainly differ by cancer type and stage^[4][6]. For example, while extending survival may remain a priority in treatment settings with poor prognoses, for cancers where prognosis is improving, disease progression and quality of life may prove more valuable. Once alignment is reached on which outcomes are most valuable to patients, appropriate endpoints and PROs should then be defined through consultation with clinicians and healthcare professionals^[6].

There also exists an opportunity for greater harmonization in the methodologies used to validate endpoints and generate data^[4][6]. This is particularly important for PROs where there is lack of standardization in data collection methods, analysis and interpretation. Alignment on the levels of uncertainty that are acceptable to regulatory and HTA decision-makers and other stakeholders is also important, requiring greater transparency on the evidence needed to support regulatory approval and reimbursement in specific treatment settings^[4][6]. Much work has already been undertaken to establish the surrogate and standalone value of alternative oncology-relevant endpoints. However, the use of real-world evidence and other health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) studies to evaluate the long-term clinical and economic impact of treatments may help accelerate efforts to bridge these gaps^[6].

Global HTA bodies and professional organizations are already taking steps towards a more harmonized approach to assessing the surrogate and standalone value of non-OS endpoints. For example, an ongoing collaboration between HTA bodies including the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) is developing methodological guidance and a new joint scientific advice procedure on the use of surrogate outcomes for cost-effectiveness analysis^[8]. The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) has also established a taskforce to set good practices for surrogacy evaluation and validation of the relationships between outcomes informing HTA decisions^[9]. These initiatives run alongside broader efforts to harmonize HTA decision-making processes within the European Union under Joint Clinical Assessment, providing an opportunity to promote greater standardization around non-OS endpoints^[10][11].

By supporting more transparent and consistent approaches for the evaluation of alternative oncology-relevant endpoints, these programs have the potential to promote more predictable outcomes in HTA decision-making – a necessary step towards building confidence in the value and suitability of alternative endpoints in clinical trial design.

Looking beyond overall survival

Overall survival remains an important measure of the value of cancer therapies, yet there exists a growing role for oncology-relevant endpoints beyond this ‘gold standard’. By considering patients’ needs, addressing uncertainties, and building consensus around the best outcomes to use in specific treatment settings, oncology-relevant endpoints beyond OS have the potential to facilitate faster and more cost-efficient access to novel cancer treatments.

Clarivate has supported our clients bring the next generation of innovative oncology treatments to market, empowering early-stage R&D and robust clinical trial design, through to navigating regulatory and market access pathways. Within Clarivate’s Evidence, Value and Access consultancy, our reimbursement dossiers, value stories, and objection handlers have supported clients achieve their market access goals in breast cancer, bladder cancer, leukemia and beyond, and our team have expertise with novel technologies such as CAR-T therapies. To learn more about our capabilities and how we can support you, please get in touch here.

This post was written by Richard Massey, Director, Value Communication and Clara Ricci, Senior Medical Writer.

References

^[1]Delgado, A. and A.K. Guddati, Clinical endpoints in oncology – a primer. Am J Cancer Res, 2021. 11(4): p. 1121-1131.

^[2]Cimen, A., et al., Shifting perspectives on the value of non-OS endpoints and PROs: Considerations across stakeholder groups to support oncology HTA decision-making. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2023. 41(16_suppl): p. e13646-e13646.

^[3]McKee, A.E., et al., The role of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration review process: clinical trial endpoints in oncology. Oncologist, 2010. 15 Suppl 1: p. 13-8.

^[4]Fameli, A., et al., Looking Beyond Survival Data: How Should We Assess Innovation in Oncology Reimbursement Decision Making. Values & Outcomes Spotlight, 2023. 9(5): p. S5.

^[5]IQVIA report, Evolving oncology endpoints – a new horizon for health outcomes 2021.

^[6]European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Federations report, Improving the understanding, acceptance and use of oncology–relevant endpoints in HTA body / payer decision-making 2023

^[7]Grigore, B., et al., Surrogate Endpoints in Health Technology Assessment: An International Review of Methodological Guidelines. PharmacoEconomics, 2020. 38(10): p. 1055-1070.

^[8]NICE, International health technology assessment collaboration expands

^[9]ISPOR, Surrogate Endpoint Statistical Evaluation for HTA Decision Making

^[10]European Commission, Questions and Answers: Adoption of Regulation on Health Technology Assessment

^[11]European Commission, Health Technology Assessment

The post Beyond overall survival: Time to agree on the value of alternative oncology endpoints? appeared first on Clarivate.

Liver cancer and focal liver lesions

Liver cancer ranks as the third-leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide.^[5] The dominant form of liver cancer is hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), accounting for 80% of primary liver cancers.^[6] HCC is a type of FLL; however, FLLs also encompass other malignant lesions, such as intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and hepatic metastasis, as well as benign lesions such as hepatic haemangioma and focal nodular hyperplasia. Early detection and accurate characterization of FLLs are crucial for optimal treatment decisions and prognostic predictions.^[7]

FLLs are often found incidentally during imaging for other purposes, such as the assessment of abdominal pain or during surveillance for liver metastases in patients with non-liver cancer.^[8] Three main imaging modalities are used for the detection and characterization of FLLs: conventional ultrasound is often the modality to first detect FLLs, after which contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT), contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CEMRI), or contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) are used for FLL characterisation.^[8][9][10]

Key modalities used for liver imaging

Ultrasound, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are non-invasive imaging modalities, and each relies on different underlying physical principles (Figure 1). Ultrasound uses sound waves that pass into the body and bounce back from the tissues inside, like an echo. Different tissue types reflect the sound waves differently and software is used to process these echoes to create images of the body.^[11][12]

CT uses a series of X-rays to build images by acquiring multiple projections of the same location from different orientations. Tomographic reconstruction then generates 3D cross-sectional images of the body. The individual X-ray images quantify the reduction in X-ray intensity as they pass through tissues. Different tissue types absorb different levels of radiation (e.g. bones absorb the most) and the resulting differential generates contrast.^[11][12]

MRI employs strong magnets to create a magnetic field in which protons (mostly hydrogen atoms in water molecules) in the body will preferentially align with the magnetic field. By pulsing a specific radiofrequency through the patient’s body, the protons can be forced to spin out of alignment with the magnetic field. After the radiofrequency is turned off, the protons relax back to their resting alignment and release energy. Different tissue types have different relaxation properties, and the released energy can be measured to create an image.^[11][12]

Figure 1: Non-invasive modalities for liver imaging

Enhancing contrast to enhance categorisation

For all three imaging modalities, contrast agents can be used to improve their diagnostic capability. Contrast agents for CEUS consist of microbubbles containing an inert gas stabilized by a shell, enhancing the echo (and thus signal intensity) from the blood.^[13][14] Contrast agents for CECT typically contain iodine atoms that increase image contrast by absorbing X-rays.^[15] CEMRI often uses gadolinium-based contrast agents that shorten the relaxation times of proton nuclei in the tissues, improving signal intensity from contrast-enhanced tissues.^[16][17]

For characterization of FLLs, particularly in patients at high risk of HCC, a Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) has been developed to categorize FLLs from LR-1 (definitely benign) to LR-5 (definitely HCC). LI-RADS algorithms specific to CECT/CEMRI and CEUS are available.^[18] Categorization considers factors such as the lesion size and flow of contrast agent through the liver. Because the liver has a dual blood supply (from the hepatic artery and the portal vein), three distinct phases can be assessed during imaging, in which the injected contrast agents (for any of the modalities) ‘wash in’ and ‘wash out’ of the liver: the arterial phase, portal venous phase, and late phase. Depending on the pattern of contrast enhancement of FLLs compared with the surrounding liver parenchyma, the FLLs can be categorized by CEUS, CECT and/or CEMRI.^{[19][20][21][22]}

Advantages and limitations of modalities for liver imaging

All three contrast-enhanced modalities play a role in charactering FLLs, and each has advantages and limitations. For example, CEUS offers real-time imaging, has wide accessibility, can be performed with the clinician/radiographer at the patient’s bedside and is relatively inexpensive.^[10][23][24] However, CEUS has limited penetration depth, affecting imaging in overweight/obese patients, and only one lesion can be studied at a time. ^[22][23][24] Conversely, CECT and CEMRI can visualize deep structures and enable evaluation of the whole liver. ^{[10][15][23][24]} A limitation of CECT is that it uses ionising radiation, and contrast agents for both CT and MRI have restricted use in patients with renal impairment due to nephrotoxic effects.^[10][23][25] CECT and CEMRI cannot be performed in real-time and imaging is performed at predetermined times following contrast agent administration.^[22] They are also performed in a dedicated room, where the patient is confined to a large scanner on their own and may experience discomfort.^[24]

Depending on multiple factors, one modality may be preferred over the other, or multiple modalities may be used, complementing each other.^[8][10][22] Understanding the benefits and limitations of these techniques is necessary to guide the selection of the most appropriate imaging modalities for specific individuals, and assist in accurate characterization and diagnosis of FLLs to avoid delays in diagnosis and treatment, thereby improving patient outcomes.^[4] Such insights can also help optimize medical workflows, and ultimately reduce healthcare utilisation.^[9][24][26]

The Clarivate Value Communication team, helps life science companies present the benefits of innovative and highly technical medical technologies to market access stakeholders in clear, impactful ways. We specialize in the development of robust and compelling value communication materials, including value story slide decks, global value and reimbursement dossiers, objection handlers and publications. We also have extensive experience in primary payer and KOL research, and in developing interactive client workshops and training.

To learn more about our capabilities and how we can support you, please get in touch at https://clarivate.com/products/life-sciences-and-healthcare-consulting-services/evidence-value-access-consulting/.

This post was written by Ulrike Jahnke, Medical Writer, and Paul Cowling, Medical Writer.

References

^[1]Devarbhavi H, Asrani SK, Arab JP, Nartey YA, Pose E, Kamath PS. Global burden of liver disease: 2023 update. J Hepatol. 2023 Aug;79(2):516-537

^[2]World Liver Day website.

^[3]European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) press release

^[4]Singh S, Hoque S, Zekry A, Sowmya A. Radiological Diagnosis of Chronic Liver Disease and Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Review. J Med Syst. 2023 Jul 11;47(1):73

^[5]Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249

^[6]Rumgay H, Ferlay J, de Martel C, Georges D, Ibrahim AS, Zheng R, Wei W, Lemmens VEPP, Soerjomataram I. Global, regional and national burden of primary liver cancer by subtype. Eur J Cancer. 2022 Jan;161:108-118

^[7]Marrero JA, Ahn J, Rajender Reddy K; Americal College of Gastroenterology. ACG clinical guideline: the diagnosis and management of focal liver lesions. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Sep;109(9):1328-47

^[8]Algarni AA, Alshuhri AH, Alonazi MM, Mourad MM, Bramhall SR. Focal liver lesions found incidentally. World J Hepatol. 2016 Mar 28;8(9):446-51

^[9]O’Brien M, Oliver L, Proctor N, Siakantari M, Cantin P, Griffin CP, Stenberg B. Assessing the impact and resource implications of contrast-enhanced ultrasound on workflow of patients with incidental focal liver lesions on the UK national health service. Acta Radiol Open. 2023 Jun 13;12(6):20584601231183131

^[10]Burrowes DP, Medellin A, Harris AC, Milot L, Lethebe BC, Wilson SR. Characterization of Focal Liver Masses: A Multicenter Comparison of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound, Computed Tomography, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. J Ultrasound Med. 2021 Dec;40(12):2581-2593

^[11]Medical Imaging Signals and Systems. Second Edition. Eds: Prince CL, Links JM. Pearson Education Inc. 2015

^[12]Medical Imaging Systems. An Introductory Guide. Eds: Maier M, Steidl S, Christlein V, Hornegger J, Springer Open 2018

^[13]Frinking P, Segers T, Luan Y, Tranquart F. Three Decades of Ultrasound Contrast Agents: A Review of the Past, Present and Future Improvements. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2020 Apr;46(4):892-908

^[14]Yusefi H, Helfield B. Ultrasound Contrast Imaging: Fundamentals and Emerging Technology. Front Phys. 2022;10:791145

^[15]Owens TC, Anton N, Attia MF. CT and X-ray contrast agents: Current clinical challenges and the future of contrast. Acta Biomater. 2023 Nov;171:19-36

^[16]Lohrke J, Frenzel T, Endrikat J, Alves FC, Grist TM, Law M, et al. 25 Years of Contrast-Enhanced MRI: Developments, Current Challenges and Future Perspectives. Adv Ther. 2016 Jan;33(1):1-28

^[17]Chandra T, Mohan S. Role of Contrast in MR Imaging. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2016 Aug;25(4):151-6

^[18]Marks RM, Masch WR, Chernyak V. LI-RADS: Past, Present, and Future, From the AJR Special Series on Radiology Reporting and Data Systems. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021 Feb;216(2):295-304

^[19]Bargellini I, Battaglia V, Bozzi E, Lauretti DL, Lorenzoni G, Bartolozzi C. Radiological diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatocell Carcinoma. 2014;1:137-48

^[20]Dietrich CF, Nolsoe CP, Barr RG, Berzigotti A, Burns PN, Cantisani V, et al. Guidelines and Good Clinical Practice Recommendations for Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in the Liver-Update 2020 WFUMB in Cooperation with EFSUMB, AFSUMB, AIUM, and FLAUS. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2020 Oct;46(10):2579-604

^[21]Kim TK, Noh SY, Wilson SR, Kono Y, Piscaglia F, Jang HJ, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS) 2017 – a review of important differences compared to the CT/MRI system. Clin Mol Hepatol. 2017 Dec;23(4):280-9

^[22]Wilson SR, Lyshchik A, Piscaglia F, Cosgrove D, Jang HJ, Sirlin C, et al. CEUS LI-RADS: algorithm, implementation, and key differences from CT/MRI. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2018 Jan;43(1):127-42

^[23]Yang Q, Zheng R, Zhou J, Tang L, Zhang R, Jiang T, et al. On-Site Diagnostic Ability of CEUS/CT/MRI for Hepatocellular Carcinoma (2019-2022): A Multicenter Study. J Ultrasound Med. 2023 Dec;42(12):2825-38

^[24]Islam, S.K.M.S., Nasim, M.A.A., Hossain, I., Ullah, D.M.A., Gupta, D.K.D., Bhuiyan, M.M.H. (2023). Introduction of Medical Imaging Modalities. In: Zheng, B., Andrei, S., Sarker, M.K., Gupta, K.D. (eds) Data Driven Approaches on Medical Imaging. Springer, Cham

^[25]American College of Radiology (ACR). ACR Manual On Contrast Media – 2023

^[26]Thrall JH. Appropriateness and imaging utilization: “computerized provider order entry and decision support”. Acad Radiol. 2014 Sep;21(9):1083-7

The post Medical imaging modalities: A spotlight on the liver appeared first on Clarivate.

Our sustainability report is full of real-life examples of how we help our customers, colleagues and communities, with transparent, data-driven results and real insights on where we need to focus moving forward. This is just one example.

Our aim to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all

In today’s rapidly evolving world, ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education for all is paramount.

With over 130 million students benefiting from our solutions, we have a significant impact on education. Our tools empower students to enhance their learning and research experiences and accessing valuable resources. We serve as trusted partners to over 26,000 public and academic libraries, providing essential tools and resources.

We value diversity and have incorporated Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) resources into our practices, so that all three of our corporate values: Own your actions, aim for greatness and value every voice, align with the development of DEI’s to help build trust, pursue hard-to-get content from underrepresented communities and historically silenced groups, and respond to the needs of research institutions, libraries and their patrons.

ProQuest: Leading the Way in DEI

For decades ProQuest has been creating DEI resources and building diverse collections of educational materials for libraries, enhancing greater representation of collections focusing on underrepresented regions and communities. Primary source research collections deal with topics such as women’s equality, incarceration and discrimination, disabilities, racial injustice and more.

One person in seven experiences disability, yet the story of this community and its contributions is largely absent from the scholarly record.

To identify and fill the gaps in our collections, ProQuest works with the academic community including academic advisory boards, partners with faculty on projects and talks regularly to their librarian partners and archivists. The accumulated well of knowledge is preserved in a multimedia collection – Disability in the Modern World which enables students and researchers to include this important piece of the puzzle in their research.

In September of 2023, Clarivate and ProQuest introduced ‘LibLists‘, an innovative platform empowering librarians to share collection curation expertise. The inaugural LibList, “Inclusivity in Healthcare” by Maria King, addresses diversity in healthcare education, offering a vital resource for neurodivergent students. With over 50 titles, King’s list is indispensable for health sciences libraries.

In 2022, we added archival material from an organization called Humanity and Inclusion that won a Nobel Prize for their international campaign to ban landmines. The new collection brings together pamphlets, reports, case studies, workshop material, manuals, guides and videos created by Humanity and Inclusion from 1985-2021, highlighting this important work to a global audience for the first time.

Language Inclusivity and Bias Mitigation

At Clarivate we review metadata and indexing terms to eliminate potential harm to marginalized communities. Our choice of indexing terms is non-discriminatory and reflects evolving inclusive language. We actively implement processes and technologies to prevent, detect and mitigate any biases.

As champions of inclusive education, we advance diversity, equity, and inclusion through innovative solutions. By providing cutting-edge tools, resources, and comprehensive collections, we empower individuals to explore, learn and grow. Together, we create an inclusive and equitable educational landscape.

Continuing to Learn, Act and Grow Together

Like so many organizations on a similar journey to sustainability, we realize we have a lot more to do. We all have an essential role to play to drive positive, meaningful impact for years to come.

We welcome you to join the conversation at clarivate.com/sustainability-at-clarivate/ as we work hard to build a more sustainable company that is focused on the bigger picture and driving long-term sustainable success for our customers, our community and our world.

The post How Clarivate works towards SDG 4: Ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education appeared first on Clarivate.

Our sustainability report is full of real-life examples of how we help our customers, colleagues and communities, with transparent, data-driven results and real insights on where we need to focus moving forward. This is just one example.

SDG 9 aims to build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation. At Clarivate, we are proud to play a significant role in supporting these goals and driving positive change – it aligns perfectly with our mission to drive innovation, support sustainable industrial practices, and create a robust infrastructure for a better future.

Our aim to build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation

Our commitment to accelerating innovation is evident through our partnerships with 90 percent of the world’s top R&D investors. By harnessing the power of data and insights, we empower our customers along the innovation lifecycle, helping them bring groundbreaking ideas and solutions to market faster. Through our Web of Science and Derwent World Patents Index, we compile a vast library of global research and invention information to create a vast library of humanity’s current level of scientific and technological knowledge.

But we don’t stop at collecting data. At Clarivate, we enhance the data and metadata by classifying it for technical approach and industrial use, providing valuable insights into the impact, expenditure, and rarity of innovations. With over 200 million individual documents detailing research and development outcomes, we equip policy makers with a comprehensive understanding of the global technology landscape, enabling them to inform sustainable policies.

At Clarivate, we will celebrate this year’s World IP Day by delving into the synergy between IP and SDGs, acknowledging their pivotal role in driving innovation and creativity for a unified future. To forge our shared path toward the SDGs, a paradigm shift in our lifestyle and activities is imperative. World IP Day 2024 provides a platform to contemplate the role of intellectual property in fostering and magnifying innovative solutions crucial for our collective future.

Top 100 Global Innovators

How we will live in the 2030s is being defined now. Our health, our prosperity and the sustainability of our very world is built on the ideas created today. Some, more than others, define our future – those who employ thousands of researchers, who invest in science and engineering, who are happy to see results outside the current quarter and who practice leadership. Those that know that innovative new ideas and solutions to current problems influence not just their financials but foster genuine improvement in the human condition and the health of our habitats. Those that choose to lead. For 12 years Clarivate has found these companies.

To recognize the organizations at the forefront of the global innovation ecosystem, we publish the Top 100 Global Innovators report. These companies and organizations consistently demonstrate exceptional innovation performance. In our 2023 report, we also identified the 50 research organizations most frequently cited by the Top 100 Global Innovators 2023, highlighting the intellectual powerhouses behind engineered solutions.

“At Philips, our purpose to improve people’s health and wellbeing through meaningful innovation is the great driving force behind everything we do. It’s why we exist, and it’s never been more relevant than in these challenging times…It’s a great honor to be recognized as a Top 100 Global Innovator for the 10th consecutive year, along with so many esteemed companies. And we are excited about the future and the potential of innovation to help solve the world’s most pressing issues.”

In 2023, we found that Asia continues to lead the global innovation landscape, with Japan topping the list once again with 38 organizations and other countries like Taiwan 11, South Korea five, and Mainland China four, making significant contributions. The United States 19, France and Germany seven, also play crucial roles.

The electronics and computing equipment industry emerges as the largest sector among the Top 100 Global Innovators, followed by chemicals and materials, semiconductors, and automotive.

“At Clarivate, we aim to bring clarity to the complex. Our focus is to pore over what humanity knows today and to put forward the insight that explores all possible horizons; that enables transition and transformation. We acknowledge the Top 100 Global Innovators 2023 – companies and organizations that know that innovative ideas and solutions to current challenges not only bring rewards to their businesses but foster genuine improvements in society.”

Continuing to Learn, Act and Grow Together

Like so many organizations on a similar journey to sustainability, we realize we have a lot more to do. We all have an essential role to play to drive positive, meaningful impact for years to come.

We welcome you to join the conversation at clarivate.com/sustainability-at-clarivate/ as we work hard to build a more sustainable company that is focused on the bigger picture and driving long-term success for our customers, our community and our world.

The post How Clarivate works towards SDG 9: Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation appeared first on Clarivate.

In late 2023, Research Professional News, an editorially independent part of Clarivate, surveyed research office leaders and staff as well as researchers around the world, taking a close look at the challenges facing them today and in the future. The resulting report Research Offices of the Future reveals a clear consensus among respondents about the number one priority of the research office: finding and securing more funding. The survey also revealed that a key barrier to earning grants and awards is researchers’ lack of engagement with their research office colleagues.

“What surprised me the most in this report was the huge discrepancy between researchers and research offices, how they engage and see each other’s value,” said Silke Blohm, Founding Director, 4Sciences Group, in a panel discussion about the report’s findings. She views researchers’ ‘lack of engagement’ as a “big challenge, also a big opportunity, because this is an area where the research office has some control.”

Research offices around the world are struggling to build more effective relationships with researchers with lean staff and increasing workloads. In a prior panel discussion, research office leaders Meg Sparling (University of California, Davis), Daniel Moseke (University of Arizona) and Emily Brashear (Washington State University) stressed the importance of simplifying workflows throughout the research enterprise, shifting time from administrative tasks to activities that are crucial to winning funding.

The time-stretched (and stressed) research environment

Nearly 50% of research office staff rate time-pressures among the top three challenges of their job. “[There is] limited awareness and understanding of the quality threshold needed to win funding and the time it takes to write proposals of this level,” notes a U.K. research development leader.

Research Offices of the Future also notes that 25% of research offices are staffed by fewer than 10 people… sometimes much fewer. Sparling, the research funding coordinator at University of California, Davis, a tier one research institution where grants and awards approach $1 billion annually, supports hundreds of researchers. Despite her own monumental workload, she understands that researchers are just as busy.

Indeed, a 2021 report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in the U.S. points to a researcher environment that’s overworked and underpaid. It says that one in five researchers is working more than 55 hours a week and earning less than $30,000 per year. Respondents to the Research Professional News survey agree: “Researchers are frustrated with the workload model and lack of administrative support for both teaching and research activities,” said a member of a U.K.-based research office team.

The workload of researchers also has a disabling impact on the research office. Research Offices of the Future quotes one senior member of a research office in Australia: “Time-poor academics find it difficult to effectively plan, draft and submit the highest quality and competitive proposals with limited support.”

Lifting burdens on both sides of the relationship

Building engagement between researchers and research office staff to find and convert opportunities into winning proposals requires a macro view of what will make both sides of the relationship more successful. For example, support staff need tools that cut straight to relevant opportunities and make them easy to share with researchers and their teams. Researchers need tools that make it easy to share opportunities with their teams, labs, collaborators and students. Research units benefit from tools that enable them to display opportunities on their websites.

A growing number of research leaders are using three key strategies to engage with researchers and win more funding:

• Streamline the process of finding relevant opportunities
• Improve communication with researchers
• Help researchers be more autonomous

1. Streamline opportunity searches

Wading through hundreds of calls for funding to find relevant opportunities is both time-consuming and prone to error through oversight. New technology solutions that use funding opportunity databases as a foundation can automate searches and relieve a significant time burden. With these solutions, staff can cut through opportunities from thousands of funders with searches that precisely match research interests and eligibility criteria.

The University of Arizona is a tier one research institution with $955 million in research expenditures that are spread across a host of research areas undertaken by the university’s 3,000+ faculty: a challenge for the university’s Research Development Services (RDS) staff. Moseke reports they’ve tamed the workload by using Pivot-RP, a research funding solution from Clarivate, to automate opportunity searches. An additional short-cut in Pivot-RP automatically matches funding opportunities to researcher profiles, enabling the staff to simplify the task of direct outreach.

A note of caution: these technologies are only as good as the underlying database. Databases should be updated continually with content that’s editorially curated by experts.

2. Make communications more effective

Panelists noted the dilemma of reaching researchers: their email inboxes are overflowing, a barrier to delivering relevant opportunities in a timely way.

It’s sage advice for research offices in reviewing their communications to researchers. Newsletters that include too few opportunities are unlikely to be relevant to the majority of the researchers receiving them and waste staff and readers’ time. Conversely, pages and pages of broad opportunities are time-consuming to create and a challenge for researchers to wade through.

Emily Brashear, leader of the one-person research office at Washington State University, has solved that dilemma by sending a university-branded newsletter that “everyone pays attention to.” The newsletter includes links to lists of opportunities in Pivot-RP, organized by research interest. The targeted links enable the newsletter to be both a quick read and relevant to nearly every recipient.

Help researchers help themselves

Ironically, a key strategy for building researcher engagement is to help them be more self-sufficient. Making it easy for researchers to search effectively for funding on their own reduces the workload on research offices. That shifts time into more strategic work like helping researchers craft winning proposals or enrich their profiles.

Sparling creates custom, saved searches using Pivot-RP for each campus research initiative and for trending research topics. Then, she makes the funding opportunity searches public so that all users can access them. In addition to including the links in newsletters, she provides them as search widgets to relevant campus websites. Her goal: “Meet researchers where they are,” she said.

Further, she’s enabling teams and groups within the university to become funding information hubs. She creates custom groups using email addresses and populates them with saved searches. “They can easily share specific funding opportunities with the whole group,” she said.

By embedding a Pivot-RP search box directly within research office webpages, UC Davis and other institutions make it easy for researchers to search directly in the Pivot-RP database. University of Arizona and Washington State University include pre-scoped links to relevant funding searches from Pivot-RP directly on research office webpages, streamlining the process for researchers even more.

Another way researchers can help their chances of finding funding success is by familiarizing themselves with the types of projects funders have funded in the past. In addition to high-level previously awarded grants information searchable in Pivot-RP, researchers will be able to perform deeper analysis on this same data with the new release of the Grants Index on the Web of Science platform. Researchers will have quick access to information on previously awarded grants from around the world at two different points in their workflow, during their Web of Science discovery and during their Pivot-RP funding search. This will build a deeper understanding of what’s already been funded in an area and who is winning the funding – information that can help them align their new projects and proposals with funder goals.

Do more with what you have

Research Offices of the Future reveals that research office leaders’ three biggest challenges are budget, time pressures and attracting staff. Looking ahead five years, these leaders believe cost pressures will be the biggest driver of change in their operations. Streamlining now, building richer connections with researchers without adding to staff, alleviates burdens today and prepares research offices to succeed in the future.

Let us help you build researcher engagement to win more funding

Request a trial or get more information about Pivot-RP at: https://discover.clarivate.com/ExLibris-research-funding-product-request

The post Three ways research offices can lead researchers to more funding appeared first on Clarivate.

This latest report, like its predecessors, bases its findings on Research Fronts, which are self-organizing clusters of related research identified by citation analysis. Research Fronts form when clusters of highly cited papers are frequently cited together. This pattern of co-citation, as it’s known, indicates that the papers share a cognitive link or point of commonality, such as a concept, hypothesis, method, or experimental data. With the co-cited papers serving as a foundational core, the other component of a Research Front consists of the subsequent papers that cite the core. These citing papers offer insights into how a given specialty area is progressing and evolving.

An Organic View

A unique advantage of Research Fronts is that identifying these “nodes” of specialized activity does not depend on the judgments of human indexers or analysts. Instead, researchers themselves reveal these fronts in the course of publishing their work, when they decide upon the most pertinent and significant papers to cite. In this way, Research Fronts provide a more dynamic and “organic” perspective on how specialty areas form, grow, branch out, merge with other disciplines, and, possibly, dissipate, as new citation-based groupings reveal themselves.

This dynamic view of the research landscape is invaluable in providing knowledge and foresight to policymakers and administrators in governmental, academic, and commercial settings—as well as to anyone with an interest in the latest areas of concentration and activity in science.

As in past reports, analysts from the Institute of Science and Development, and the National Science Library of the CAS, collaborated with bibliometric experts from Clarivate, turning to the Essential Science Indicators database, which is built on the foundation of the Web of Science index.

Analysts first consolidated the 22 subject fields in Essential Science Indicators into 11 broad specialty areas. Starting with more than 12,000 Research Fronts, representing papers published and cited between 2017 and 2022, the next step was to select the fronts containing core literature that is both highly cited and recent—an indicator of particularly active and fast-moving research.

Ultimately, the analysis produced 110 fronts that are especially active, or “hot,” as well as 18 emerging fronts, with the latter selected on the basis of notably recent core literature.

In addition to listing all 110 Research Fronts across the 11 specialty areas, the report’s discipline-based chapters include detailed examinations of selected fronts, including rankings of notable nations and institutions whose contributions are central to each front’s core and citing literature.

A Broad Range

The latest compendium of fast-moving Research Fronts reflects a broad range of specialty areas and topics.

Although studies related to COVID-19 have receded in comparison to their high profile in the previous two annual roundups, the pandemic and its various facets still command attention. Research Fronts in clinical medicine reflect the ongoing evaluation of antiviral treatments and the efficacy and effects of COVID-19 vaccines. Meanwhile, hot fronts in the areas of economics and psychology examine such aspects as the pandemic’s lingering disruption of supply chains, as well as COVID-related effects on adolescent mental health.

In environmental sciences, a Research Front centers on the growing problem of microplastics in the environment—specifically, in agricultural soil, due to farmers’ use of plastic mulch. On the same topic, recent research in an emerging front examines what is perhaps the most troubling effect of microplastics: the detection of the pollutant in human tissue.

Other Research Fronts highlight ongoing investigations across the scientific spectrum. In biology, an emerging front examines the phenomenon of “cuproptosis”—a recently identified form of regulated cell death induced by copper. Researchers are investigating the role of this process in cancer and other diseases.

In astronomy and astrophysics, scientists continue to study the characteristics and origin of fast radio bursts, the cosmic explosions that produce more energy in a fraction of a second than the sun does in a year.

Meanwhile, artificial intelligence continues to cast its shadow in many disciplines, from promoting “brain-inspired learning” in machines to affording deeper knowledge of the human proteome.

These examples, of course, represent only a small sampling of the 110 specialty areas highlighted in the report.

Fields and Nations

Released concurrently with Research Fronts 2023 is the updated version of another yearly report: “Research Fronts 2023: Active Fields, Leading Countries/Regions”. This report provides a deeper view of Research Front activity, including extensive and nuanced metrics on national and institutional performance in the 2023 fronts.

The post Tenth Annual “Research Fronts Report” Highlights Hot and Emerging Fields appeared first on Clarivate.

There is now widespread acknowledgement that diversity strengthens research environments, creating a fairer, more equitable culture in which people from all backgrounds can thrive. But the growing attention paid to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI or EDI) has not yet translated into the scale or pace of change needed to unlock research careers for many people from groups under-represented in the sector.

How can we take action? Research Professional News, part of Clarivate, recently gathered leading experts and advocates in a webinar to discuss what’s working in DEI. Panelists included:

• Katherine Deane, Associate Professor in the School of Health Sciences at the University of East Anglia and University Access Ambassador
• Sapna Marwaha, Deputy Chair of the Association of Research Managers and Administrators (ARMA) and Chair of the EDI Advisory Group
• Jacob Feldtfos Christensen, Director of DIVERSIunity
• Parveen Yaqoob, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Research and Innovation, University of Reading
• Dina Stroud, Program Director, U.S. National Science Foundation.
• Alejandro Palermo, Head of Global Inclusion, Royal Society of Chemistry

The wide-ranging discussion examined what can be done to speed the pace of change. We’ve gathered their advice and experiences into five key strategies for bolstering DEI initiatives in the research environment.

#1 Acknowledge the issues are real

It may seem obvious but accepting that DEI initiatives are solving real challenges is an important foundation. “This is not political correctness,” said Jacob Christensen. “[DEI] is a topic for everyone, not just minorities.”

Katherine Deane provided sobering facts about the very real challenges facing disabled researchers in lab settings. Her research identified that one third of research labs don’t have an accessible toilet in the same building as their disabled researchers. More alarming was that only 20% of disabled researchers had an emergency evacuation plan.

“This isn’t special treatment,” Deane said. “This is what we need to do our jobs.”

Acknowledging the issues and documenting challenges spurs action plans that are targeted and designed to improve experiences for all.

#2 Make DEI part of the research strategy from the beginning

As research has become more global in scope, researchers are collaborating across countries, continents and cultures. DEI becomes more complicated as cultural norms can vary widely.

When it comes to collaborative research projects. Christensen recommends establishing the DEI plan and policy at the beginning, making it part of the project culture. He underscores that it’s okay to start small and build on a foundation. This prevents researchers from feeling so overwhelmed that they never create a DEI plan.

Developing those plans can often include difficult conversations, making them easy to put off. He shared a story of a gay researcher working on a project in Saudi Arabia. The researcher chose to stay closeted but didn’t disclose this detail to his partners and was inadvertently outed at a dinner. “It literally put his life in jeopardy,” said Christensen.

Having a DEI plan from the beginning provides a guide for collaborators, enabling them to find a balance between the project culture and any possible conflicts with their national identity. Potential challenges can be addressed up front and provide researchers with a shared plan for how to deal with them.

Importantly, more and more funders are expecting a DEI statement as part of a grant application. Having it in place from the beginning avoids submitting a tacked on, rush job that may sound more like lip service than a sincere commitment.

#3 Build a fair recruitment and advancement process

“Women drop off at every level of advancement,” said Sapna Marwaha. In her work as chair of the EDI Advisory Group, Marwaha is leading change at ARMA to ensure all professionals have an equal opportunity in recruitment and advancement.

At ARMA, the applicant screening process is anonymized, and the entire hiring process considers a candidate’s skills only, eliminating any questions that aren’t directly relevant to what’s needed to succeed in the job. Among other things, they eliminate questions about career breaks or salary history, which might indicate caring responsibilities at home. According to Marwaha, people with or have had caring responsibilities meet consistent barriers to advancement.

At ARMA, an essential part of this process is screening questions that will be asked of candidates and coaching recruiters ahead of interviews. “You can broaden the candidate pool, but without that internal change you just delay the point at which people experience discrimination,” said Marwaha.

#4 Trial, refine, persevere

Building an effective DEI program can be a process of trial and error. Working with a DEI advisory group that includes broad representation can be source of new ideas and feedback on existing programs. Importantly, being deliberate about DEI requires a willingness to experiment.

For example, Parveen Yaqoob broke new ground at University of Reading when she job-shared a board-level position, enabling her to keep advancing her career without sacrificing time with her family. Importantly, her position added diversity to the board. While there were some initial hiccups, she and her job share partner solved them quickly through a commitment to communication and collaboration. The partnership lasted for five years and was a benefit to the university.

Just as Yaqoob and her partner relied on feedback to identify gaps and issues, refining DEI programs to make them more effective relies on effective data collection. “You can’t act, if you can’t measure,” said Marwaha. To build trust and ensure that individuals feel safe about disclosing inequalities and discrimination. ARMA ensures its values are highly visible. Discussing the work they’re doing provides a clear signal that the environment is safe for minorities to provide honest feedback.

#5 Work where you can make a difference

Building an organizational understanding that DEI initiatives should not be construed with political correctness or special treatment can be challenging. It means changing attitudes and behaviors. Yet, this internal change is key.

Panelists recommended finding advocates for the cause to help spread change. “Work where there’s energy,” said Christensen.

Marwaha added, “You’ve got to go find the co-conspirators, the people who are going to work with you. Go to the spaces where your energy is going to make a difference. We shift the dial by going to the places that want to change. Where we can demonstrate that there’s a better way… that it can work and it does work.”

Play the long game

While there’s a long way to go build a global research environment that’s fair for all, each of the panelists shared successes, enthusiasm and an overwhelmingly positive view of the future. The environment is beginning to change, but the panelists warn that progress doesn’t mean the job is over. Persistence is key.

Want more insight into what your institution can do to advance DEI programs and initiatives? Listen to the panel discussion.

Clarivate is committed to progressing towards UN SDG 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. To learn more about this, and how Clarivate supports DEI initiatives, read our sustainability report.

The post Five top tips for advancing DEI in research environments appeared first on Clarivate.

Scientific research is increasingly collaborative. The once siloed approach to research activity has given way to a more interconnected global model, which has enabled a global research network to evolve. For many research economies and groups, international collaboration now accounts for  more academic publications, than purely domestic output. Institutions that do not form international collaborations risk disenfranchisement.

Deciphering the trends in research funding

Staying up to date is made easier by following reports and events that examine the ebb and flow of research funding and provide insights into the priorities and strategies of major funding organizations. An example is the Funding Trends Report published annually by Research Professional News. This year the report was matched with a virtual panel discussion that explored the nuances of working with organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the U.S. National Science Foundation, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, some of the world’s largest research funding agencies. During the panel discussion, guest speakers Adam Golberg, research development manager at the University of Nottingham, and Lorna Wilson, director of research development and operations at Durham University provided broader tips for international research collaboration. (see box)

A key take-away: the massive budgets of these funders belie a challenging reality. Despite a steady increase in overall funding budgets, the actual size of individual grants and success rates have remained relatively stagnant, indicating a complex and fiercely competitive funding landscape.

Mastering the art of securing funding

Securing research funding from major organizations requires a deep understanding of the unique goals and requirements of each one. The Gates Foundation, for instance, is known for its directive funding approach. Researchers accustomed to a high degree of autonomy may find themselves receiving more specific guidance regarding the direction of their projects, according to the discussion in the event. This hands-on approach may determine whether the Gates Foundation is the right fit for a particular project.

Conversely, the Wellcome Trust is currently working toward diversifying its recipients. Researchers with ideas centered around health and wellbeing may find the Wellcome Trust an attractive option. The organization’s recent outreach efforts across the U.K. and its webinars aimed at researchers and institutions in Latin America, Africa and Asia signal a clear intent to broaden their funding recipients.

Facing the challenges in securing funding

Rising competition and the need for a robust delivery plan pose significant hurdles for researchers. Partnerships assembled hastily often falter when it comes to securing large grants, particularly in the face of competition from teams with a long-term history of collaboration. Funders and assessors are increasingly interested in the track record of a team and its ability to deliver the project, further raising the bar for successful bids.

Pursuing equitable partnerships

In the context of research partnerships between the Global North and Global South, the quest for equity is a pressing concern. Power imbalances, resource hoarding and a lack of inclusivity in research are detrimental traits that often hinder the success of international partnerships.

Attendees at the event learned that to foster more equitable collaborations, it’s crucial to hold discussions with partners early and to maintain a focus on the research itself rather than the allure of funding. Ensuring fair recognition of contributions and providing opportunities for leadership roles can go a long way in establishing authentic relationships and promoting inclusivity.

Charting the course for future scientific endeavors

The challenges for scientific research endeavor in the 21st century are significant, from the fierce competition for funding to the need for robust delivery plans and long-standing collaborations. Yet, these challenges are not insurmountable. With strategic acumen, a deep understanding of funding organizations and a commitment to fostering equitable partnerships, researchers can unlock new avenues for funding and collaboration.

Moreover, the pursuit of equity in research partnerships, particularly between the Global North and Global South, is not just a moral imperative but a strategic one. Equitable partnerships can lead to more innovative and impactful research, benefiting not just the partners involved but the global scientific community.

As we grapple with the complex challenges facing humanity, from climate change to global health crises, the role of international research collaborations will be pivotal. These collaborations will drive the scientific advancements needed to confront these challenges and propel societal development.

The journey through the global research funding landscape may be complex, but the potential rewards – groundbreaking discoveries, scientific growth and societal progress – are immense and worthy of our collective effort.

Clarivate can help you implement confident, evidence-informed strategies to drive research excellence. Get in touch  with our experts to learn more.

The post Navigating research challenges through collaboration and Equity appeared first on Clarivate.

IP is undervalued

A 2022 Aon/Ponemon Institute report found that many businesses undervalue intangible assets relative to tangible assets despite the fact that intangible asset values are increasing faster than those of tangible assets.

While innovation is increasingly driving business growth, innovation performance is lagging in many organizations. In a survey of 215 corporate leaders in roles relating to innovation and R&D, only 6% of CEOs were satisfied with their innovation performance. Only 11% of survey respondents considered their organization to be at a stage of innovation maturity, with well-integrated business practices.

New standards and rules

A key issue in the valuation of IP has been the lack of standard accounting practices for valuing patents. Research suggests that traditional approaches used in Property, Plant and Equipment (PPE) accounting (cost-based, revenue-based and replacement value) are insufficient for measuring the contribution of intellectual property to a business. Since adopting IAS 38 Intangible Assets in 2001, the International Accounting Standards Board has made several revisions to reflect the growing importance of these assets. Recent reforms include new accounting standards for IP assets and new rules designed to increase transparency. Amendments to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) issued in 2018 and 2020 for measuring and reporting on goodwill place increased emphasis on IP as an asset class to be measured.

Recent judicial decisions are also impacting IP management. In DuPont v. Medtronic Vascular, the court found that corporate officers have an affirmative duty to monetize their corporation’s intellectual property. In Miron v. Microsoft Corp., the court determined that directors have a fiduciary duty to license IP at fair market value. This highlights the importance of increased transparency in the way corporations manage their IP.

Given this reality, financial management of IP is rapidly becoming mission critical. In today’s global marketplace, with the proliferation of patents and trademarks held in jurisdictions worldwide, the fees for applications, local agents and renewals associated with maintaining a large IP portfolio constitute a major corporate cost center that requires careful budget management.

Take control of your IP budget

That puts corporate IP leaders in the hot seat. Exceeding your IP budget could impact the company’s bottom line. Under-spending your budget creates its own potential problems in organizations with a ‘use it or lose it’ approach to budgeting. To hit those budget numbers consistently, IP departments need reliable budget forecasting. They need the ability to ‘see around corners’, accurately anticipating their future IP spend and tracking actuals against forecasts to ensure they are on track.

Now, Clarivate is helping IP departments rise to the challenge of IP budget management with our next generation Forecast solution. Forecast gives you powerful budget forecasting capabilities, seamlessly integrated with Clarivate IP management systems (IPMS). Predictive analysis powered by artificial intelligence (AI) improves budget planning, helping IP leaders make better financial decisions, stay ahead of changing conditions and avoid under- and over-spending. That means less pressure—and more time focused on managing and protecting your IP assets.

Look out for more information on this exciting, new solution soon. Can’t wait? Contact us to learn more.

The post Why the rise of intellectual property value means IP leaders need better budget management appeared first on Clarivate.

Artificial Intelligence at Clarivate

At Clarivate, our dedicated Data Science team have implemented AI across our portfolio to enhance our tools and solutions for decades, and they are forward thinking in their approach to utilizing new technology as it emerges. By bringing clarity to the complex, we give our customers the confidence to make critical decisions, navigate roadblocks and achieve their potential. ​

Artificial intelligence tools are just one of the many ways that we augment our products, tools and services. We use generative AI to ensure we provide our customers with the highest quality integrated public and proprietary content and insights, whilst also mitigating any risks involved.

Of course, artificial intelligence can only ever be as good as the input data. At Clarivate we are well-placed to capitalize on this because we have billions of proprietary best-in-class data assets, which are expertly curated and interconnected. These data feed our machine, deep learning and large language models to enrich our information and power our insights, services and workflow solutions.

Artificial Intelligence for our customers

Academia & Government: For example, we use AI to identify academic journals within the Web of Science that are outliers, to ensure our customers are confident that they can trust all indexed journals and continue to deliver gold-standard content. Trained machine learning algorithms flag these journals to our in-house editors who conduct a thorough analysis of the journal and whether it meets our standards.

Intellectual Property: Another example is the CompuMark Naming Tool which uses generative AI to automate the process of brainstorming new brand names, simultaneously analyzing them for potential usability. Trained on US, EU and Pharma In-Use databases, our proprietary AI algorithm generates creative name suggestions based on your criteria in seconds, simultaneously analyzing them against existing domain names and social media handles.

Life Sciences & Healthcare: A further example is how we draw upon our connected data lakes in Cortellis and use machine learning to generate predictors of future success relating to clinical trials progression, regulatory approvals and even valuations on M&A candidates.

How we protect your data from irresponsible use of AI

We have company-wide guidelines on the use of any generative AI application or tool.  Due to the rapidly-changing nature of the AI landscape, we will constantly review and evolve these guidelines as technology changes.

We are fiercely protective of data from all sources to ensure the privacy and security of our customers and partners. Our internal approvals process ensures checks and balances before using generative AI with any of our products or services, or before allowing any third party to use our content and products within their use of generative AI.

Thinking forward

Our expertly curated data lays a solid trusted foundation, which is built on through the latest tools and our people’s deep expertise in their subjects, as well as their thorough understanding of the risks involved and what truly matters to our customers, partners, and investors. AI is already deeply embedded in our business at Clarivate, and we will continue to look for ways to enhance our solutions and services using the very latest tools.

As a result, we help our customers to think forward no matter what new technologies emerge, knowing they can rely on our partnership.

For more information on Clarivate and artificial intelligence, read our announcement regarding the launch of our new artificial intelligence tools.

Podcast: How science and big data are helping in the search for an effective treatment of a rare disease that causes blindness. This podcast demonstrates how AI can make a positive difference in the lives of individual patients.

The post How Clarivate uses Artificial Intelligence you can trust to transform your world appeared first on Clarivate.