Yang Gui, Cui Yajuan, Dai Rui, Zhang Qiuqiu, Luo Wenqi
（ 610065） Development and Planning Division, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China.
Sichuan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2025 Jan 20;56(1):166-174. doi: 10.12182/20250160302.
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.
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.
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 2 000 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 1 851, 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 Association, The Lancet, and British Medical Journal, the percentage of hot papers in papers included in Web of Science, the percentage of highly cited papers, the percentage of international collaboration papers, the total number of citations per paper, category normalized citation impact (CNCI), and the number of publications of top-tier Chinese medical institutions were 78, 0.03%, 1.39%, 22.55%, 19.61, 1.26, 30 706, while those of the top-tier international medical institutions were 6.96, 2.66, 2.57, 2.15, 1.83, 1.58 and 1.54 times those of the Chinese medical institutions, respectively. However the average percentage of zero-citation papers of top-tier international medical institutions was only 71% of that of China's top-tier medical institutions. Furthermore, in discipline development, the average overall scores of the Times Higher Education (THE) and QS rankings for medicine-related disciplines of top-tier Chinese medical institutions were 72.84 and 69.30, respectively, while those of top-tier international medical institutions were 1.38 and 1.21 times those of the Chinese medical institutions. However, in terms of talent cultivation, the average number of students of China's top-tier medical institutions was 10724, which is roughly double that of international institutions.
Currently, China's top-tier medical institutions are still in a basic stage that emphasizes the quality of talent cultivation and medical services. There is considerable room for development and potential for catching up in multiple aspects, especially in high-level talent, medical research, and innovation. It is recommended that the construction experience of top-tier international medical institutions should be fully utilized to build China's first-class medical science discipline.
评估中国顶级医疗机构与国际顶级医疗机构之间的差距，为中国一流医学学科建设提供参考。
利用全球公认的医疗机构排名，我们选取了24家国际顶级医疗机构和11家中国顶级医疗机构。收集公开可用的、通用的和可比的指标数据，以分析国际顶级医疗机构与中国顶级医疗机构在人力资源开发、人才培养、科研、社会服务和学科建设方面的表现及差距。
在医学领域，国际顶级医疗机构与中国顶级医疗机构之间最大的差距在于高层次人才。具体而言，中国顶级医疗机构中，科睿唯安高被引研究人员、诺贝尔生理学或医学奖获得者、顶级医学期刊顾问委员会或编辑委员会成员以及排名前2000位医学科学家的平均人数分别为1.00、0.09、0.45和4.00，而国际顶级医疗机构的相应人数分别是中国医疗机构的131.46倍、118.25倍、9.72倍和6.76倍。第二大差距在于社会服务和医学创新。中国顶级医疗机构的产业合作论文平均比例和临床试验数量分别为1.51%和1851项，而国际顶级医疗机构的相应数据分别是中国顶级医疗机构的3.62倍和1.87倍。然而，国际顶级医疗机构持有的（未翻译）专利平均数量仅为中国顶级医疗机构的15%。第三大差距在于科研。中国顶级医疗机构在《新英格兰医学杂志》《美国医学会杂志》《柳叶刀》和《英国医学杂志》上发表的论文平均数量、Web of Science收录论文中的热点论文百分比、高被引论文百分比、国际合作论文百分比、每篇论文的总被引次数、类别归一化被引影响（CNCI）以及发表论文数量分别为78、0.03%、1.39%、22.55%、19.61、1.26、30706篇，而国际顶级医疗机构的相应数据分别是中国医疗机构的6.96倍、2.66倍、2.57倍、2.15倍、1.83倍、1.58倍和1.54倍。然而，国际顶级医疗机构的零被引论文平均百分比仅为中国顶级医疗机构的71%。此外，在学科发展方面，中国顶级医疗机构医学相关学科的泰晤士高等教育（THE）排名和QS排名的平均总分分别为72.84和69.30，而国际顶级医疗机构的相应分数分别是中国医疗机构的1.38倍和1.21倍。然而，在人才培养方面，中国顶级医疗机构的学生平均人数为10724人，约为国际机构的两倍。
目前，中国顶级医疗机构仍处于强调人才培养质量和医疗服务的基础阶段。在多个方面仍有很大的发展空间和追赶潜力，尤其是在高层次人才、医学研究和创新方面。建议充分借鉴国际顶级医疗机构的建设经验来打造中国一流的医学学科。
