我国一流医科与世界一流医科的差距有多大——基于国际通用指标的定量分析  

Benchmarking China's Top-Tier Medical Institutions Against Global Standards:A Quantitative Analysis of the Gap Using Internationally Recognized Metrics

作　　者：杨珪 崔亚娟[1] 戴睿[1] 张秋秋 罗雯琪 YANG Gui;CUI Yajuan;DAI Rui;ZHANG Qiuqiu;LUO Wenqi(Development and Planning Division,Sichuan University,Chengdu 610065,China)

机构地区：[1]四川大学发展规划处,成都610065

出　　处：《四川大学学报(医学版)》2025年第1期166-174,共9页Journal of Sichuan University(Medical Sciences)

基　　金：2024年四川大学党政服务管理项目(No.2024DZYJ-46)资助。

摘　　要：目的分析目前我国一流医学学科与世界一流的差距,为我国一流医学建设提供参考。方法通过全球知名医学相关排名遴选国际国内一流医学机构各24所和11所,并收集国际公开、通用、可比的指标数据分析国际国内一流医学机构在师资队伍建设、人才培养、科学研究、社会服务及学科建设上的表现及差距。结果国内一流医学机构在医学领域最大的差距体现在高层次人才方面,国内一流医学机构的科睿唯安高被引科学家、诺贝尔奖生理学或医学奖获得者、Cell杂志及“四大顶级医学期刊”顾问委员会或编委会任职人数、医学领域Top 2000科学家人数均值为1.00、0.09、0.45、4.00,国际一流医学机构分别为其131.46、118.25、9.72、6.76倍。其次为社会服务和医学创新方面,国内一流医学机构的产业合作论文占比、临床试验数均值为1.51%、1851,国际一流医学机构分别为其3.62、1.87倍,而国际一流医学机构(未转化)专利持有数仅为国内一流医学机构的15%。再次为科学研究方面,国内一流医学机构的“四大顶级医学期刊”论文数、Web of Science论文热点论文占比、高被引论文占比、国际合作论文占比、篇均被引、CNCI、发表论文数均值分别为78、0.03%、1.39%、22.55%、19.61、1.26、30706,国际一流医学机构分别约为其6.96、2.66、2.57、2.15、1.83、1.58、1.54倍,而国际一流医学机构零被引论文占比为国内一流医学机构的71%。再次在学科建设方面,国内一流医学机构THE和QS医学相关学科整体得分均值为72.84、69.30,国际一流医学机构分别约为其1.38、1.21倍。而在人才培养方面,国内一流医学机构的学生人数均值为10724人,国际一流医学机构约为其1/2。结论目前国内一流医学机构还处于重人才培养、医疗服务数量的基础阶段,在多个方面仍有较大的发展空间和追赶潜力,尤其是高层次人才、医学研究�Objective To evaluate the gap between China's top-tier medical institutions and top-tier international medical institutions,and to provide references for the construction of first-class medical science discipline in China.Methods Using globally recognized rankings of medical institutions,we selected 24 top-tier international medical institutions and 11 top-tier Chinese medical institutions.Publicly available,general,and comparable data on indicators were collected to analyze the performance and gaps between top-tier international and Chinese medical institutions in human resources development,talent cultivation,scientific research,social services,and discipline construction.Results In the field of medicine,the largest gap between top-tier international and Chinese medical institutions was in high-level talent.Specifically,the average numbers of individuals who are Clarivate Analytics'Highly Cited Researchers,who are Nobel Prize laureates in Physiology or Medicine,and who serve on advisory boards or editorial boards of top medical journals,and who rank among the Top 2000 Medicine Scientists were 1.00,0.09,0.45 and 4.00,respectively,among top-tier Chinese medical institutions,while those of the top-tier international medical institutions were 131.46,118.25,9.72,and 6.76 times,respectively,those of the Chinese medical institutions.The second largest gap was in social services and medical innovation.The average proportion of industrial collaboration papers and the number of clinical trials of China's top-tier medical institutions were 1.51%and 1851,respectively,while those of international top-tier medical institutions were 3.62 and 1.87,times,respectively,those of top-tier Chinese medical institutions.However,the average number of(untranslated)patents held by top-tier international medical institutions was only 15%of that of China's top-tier medical institutions.The third largest gap was in scientific research.The average number of papers published in New England Journal of Medicine,Journal of the American Medical A

关 键 词：医学水平 国际比较 学科评价 定量分析 

分 类 号：G649.2[文化科学—高等教育学] R-4[文化科学—教育学] G649.1[医药卫生]