A decade retrospective of medical robotics research from 2010 to 2020.

Robotics is a forward-looking discipline. Attention is focused on identifying the next grand challenges. In an applied field such as medical robotics, however, it is important to plan the future based on a clear understanding of what the research community has recently accomplished and where this work stands with respect to clinical needs and commercialization. This Review article identifies and analyzes the eight key research themes in medical robotics over the past decade. These thematic areas were identified using search criteria that identified the most highly cited papers of the decade. Our goal for this Review article is to provide an accessible way for readers to quickly appreciate some of the most exciting accomplishments in medical robotics over the past decade; for this reason, we have focused only on a small number of seminal papers in each thematic area. We hope that this article serves to foster an entrepreneurial spirit in researchers to reduce the widening gap between research and translation.

Not only laboratory to clinic: the translational work of William S. C. Copeman in rheumatology.

Since the arrival of Translational Medicine (TM), as both a term and movement in the late 1990s, it has been associated almost exclusively with attempts to accelerate the "translation" of research-laboratory findings to improve efficacy and outcomes in clinical practice (Krueger et al. in Hist Philos Life Sci 41:57, 2019). This framing privileges one source of change in medicine, that from bench-to-bedside. In this article we dig into the history of translation research to identify and discuss three other types of translational work in medicine that can also reshape ideas, practices, institutions, behaviours, or all of these, to produce transformations in clinical effectiveness. These are: (1) making accessible state-of-the-art knowledge and best practice across the medical profession; (2) remodelling and creating institutions to better develop and make available specialist knowledge and practice; and (3) improving public and patient understandings of disease prevention, symptoms and treatments. We do so by examining the work of William S. C. Copeman, a dominant figure in British rheumatology from the 1930 through the late 1960s. Throughout his long career, Copeman blended approaches to "translation" in order to produce transformative change in clinical medicine, making his work an exemplar of our expanded notion of TM.

Forty Years of Basic and Translational Heparanase Research.

This review summarizes key developments in the heparanase field obtained 20 years prior to cloning of the HPSE gene and nearly 20 years after its cloning. Of the numerous publications and review articles focusing on heparanase, we have selected those that best reflect the progression in the field as well as those we regard important accomplishments with preference to studies performed by scientists and groups that contributed to this book. Apart from a general 'introduction' and 'concluding remarks', the abstracts of these studies are presented essentially as published along the years. We apologize for not being objective and not being able to include some of the most relevant abstracts and references, due to space limitation. Heparanase research can be divided into two eras. The first, initiated around 1975, dealt with identifying the enzyme, establishing the relevant assay systems and investigating its biological activities and significance in cancer and other pathologies. Studies performed during the first area are briefly introduced in a layman style followed by the relevant abstracts presented chronologically, essentially as appears in PubMed. The second era started in 1999 when the heparanase gene was independently cloned by 4 research groups [1-4]. As expected, cloning of the heparanase gene boosted heparanase research by virtue of the readily available recombinant enzyme, molecular probes, and anti-heparanase antibodies. Studies performed during the second area are briefly introduced followed by selected abstracts of key findings, arranged according to specific topics.

Current Research Approaches to Down Syndrome: Translational Research Perspectives.

Translational research means different things to different people. In the biomedical research community, translational research is the process of applying knowledge from basic biology and clinical trials to techniques and tools that address critical medical needs such as new therapies. Translational research then is a "bench to bedside" bridge specifically designed to improve health outcomes ( Wetmore & Garner, 2010 ). In this sense, animal models or cell culture systems may be used to learn about basic underlying genetic and physiologic systems that are exceedingly difficult to study in human subjects ( Reeves et al., 2019 ). This has been a major theme in Down syndrome (DS) research since the mid-1980s when mouse models that approximate the condition of trisomy 21 (Ts21) first became available ( Das & Reeves 2011 ). Translational research has recently taken on a more expansive meaning, as the process of turning observations from the laboratory, the clinic, and the community can all lead to new therapeutic approaches to improve population health outcomes ( Rubio et al., 2010 ). This model has received increased attention in the last decade as it is clear that improving developmental outcomes for people with DS requires a community effort on the part of all stakeholders ( Capone, 2010 ).

The Progression of Regenerative Medicine and its Impact on Therapy Translation.

Despite regenerative medicine (RM) being one of the hottest topics in biotechnology for the past 3 decades, it is generally acknowledged that the field's performance at the bedside has been somewhat disappointing. This may be linked to the novelty of these technologies and their disruptive nature, which has brought an increasing level of complexity to translation. Therefore, we look at how the historical development of the RM field has changed the translational strategy. Specifically, we explore how the pursuit of such novel regenerative therapies has changed the way experts aim to translate their ideas into clinical applications, and then identify areas that need to be corrected or reinforced in order for these therapies to eventually be incorporated into the standard-of-care. This is then linked to a discussion of the preclinical and postclinical challenges remaining today, which offer insights that can contribute to the future progression of RM.

Lost in Translation? Cortisone and the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis in Britain, 1950-1960. [corrected].

Cortisone, initially known as 'compound E' was the medical sensation of the late 1940s and early 1950s. As early as April 1949, only a week after Philip Hench and colleagues first described the potential of 'compound E' at a Mayo Clinic seminar, the New York Times reported the drug's promise as a 'modern miracle' in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Given its high profile, it is unsurprising that historians of medicine have been attracted to study the innovation of cortisone. It arrived at the end of a decade of 'therapeutic revolutions', kicked off by penicillin transforming the treatment of bacterial infections and ending with hopes of a revolution in the treatment of non-infectious, chronic inflammatory diseases. Despite these studies of cortisone's introduction, few historians have taken the story forward and considered how cortisone was adopted and adapted into clinical practice. This article tells the longer of how the drug and its derivatives were taken from research laboratories and integrated into clinical practice; what has in recent decades become known as translational medicine (TM). In exploring cortisone's first decade in Britain, we focus specifically on its role in the treatment of RA. Our approach is always to consider cortisone's use in the context of other treatments available to clinicians, and at local and national institutional settings. We do not discuss the many other therapeutic uses of cortisone, which ranged for topical applications for skin diseases to the management of cancers, especially childhood leukaemia, nor do we discuss its close analogue ACTH-AdenoCorticoTropic Hormone. We think there are lessons in our study for TM policies today.