↓ Skip to main content

Just how good an investment is the biopharmaceutical sector?

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Biotechnology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
52 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 Mendeley
Title
Just how good an investment is the biopharmaceutical sector?
Published in
Nature Biotechnology, December 2017
DOI 10.1038/nbt.4023
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard T Thakor, Nicholas Anaya, Yuwei Zhang, Christian Vilanilam, Kien Wei Siah, Chi Heem Wong, Andrew W Lo

Abstract

Uncertainty surrounding the risk and reward of investments in biopharmaceutical companies poses a challenge to those interested in funding such enterprises. Using data on publicly traded stocks, we track the performance of 1,066 biopharmaceutical companies from 1930 to 2015-the most comprehensive financial analysis of this sector to date. Our systematic exploration of methods for distinguishing biotech and pharmaceutical companies yields a dynamic, more accurate classification method. We find that the performance of the biotech sector is highly sensitive to the presence of a few outlier companies, and confirm that nearly all biotech companies are loss-making enterprises, exhibiting high stock volatility. In contrast, since 2000, pharmaceutical companies have become increasingly profitable, with risk-adjusted returns consistently outperforming the market. The performance of all biopharmaceutical companies is subject not only to factors arising from their drug pipelines (idiosyncratic risk), but also from general economic conditions (systematic risk). The risk associated with returns has profound implications both for patterns of investment and for funding innovation in biomedical R&D.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 52 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 134 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 20%
Student > Bachelor 16 12%
Researcher 13 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 9%
Student > Master 11 8%
Other 28 21%
Unknown 27 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 16%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 16 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 5%
Other 35 26%
Unknown 29 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 46. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 October 2023.
All research outputs
#906,522
of 25,301,208 outputs
Outputs from Nature Biotechnology
#1,727
of 8,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,527
of 453,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Biotechnology
#28
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,301,208 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,783 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 453,334 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.