一、评价依据
The value implications of a life-sciences company differ from those of traditional manufacturing and distribution companies: biopharmaceuticals and genetic technology are characterized by long R&D cycles, large investment, high failure rates, and, once a breakthrough is achieved, the formation of a high technological barrier, so there is a significant intergenerational mismatch between "today's profit" and "tomorrow's innovation." At the same time, the industry contains two fundamentally different logics of value creation: the "R&D type (proprietary innovative drugs)" and the "service type (CRO/CDMO/testing/sequencing)." Therefore, this algorithm characterizes a company's comprehensive competitiveness from four dimensions:
生命科学企业的价值内涵与传统制造、流通企业不同：生物药与基因技术具有研发周期长、投入大、失败率高、且一旦突破即形成高技术壁垒的特点，"今天的利润"与"明天的创新"之间存在显著代际错位。同时，行业内部存在"研发型（自持创新药）"与"服务型（CRO/CDMO/检验/测序）"两类截然不同的价值创造逻辑。因此，本算法从四个维度刻画企业综合竞争力：
- 规模：以营业收入衡量，反映企业的市场体量、订单/渠道能力与抗风险底盘。
- 质量：以净利润与总市值双指标衡量，反映盈利能力（现金流与股东回报）与资本市场认可度。
- 创新：以研发投入 + 在研管线双指标衡量，前者反映持续投入意愿与研发能力储备，后者反映"未来产品"的储备深度——二者互补，避免"只看花钱不看成果"或"只看成果不看投入"的偏颇。
- 贡献：以自主创新药 / 自主诊断·测序·材料产品数量衡量，是 CPPPS 的特色维度——它度量企业"自主创新"而非"仿制、代理、贴牌、纯服务代工"给行业与国家带来的真实健康贡献，国际通行榜单普遍缺失此维度。
二、数学模型
Each indicator is first mapped to [0,1] via range (min-max) standardization and then combined by weighted summation. For large-span scale indicators (revenue, market value, R&D investment, and pipeline, with spans of up to several hundred times), the logarithm is taken before standardization to avoid domination by leading companies and to restore the true order-of-magnitude differences:
各指标先经极差标准化映射到 [0,1]，再加权求和。针对规模类大跨度指标（营收、市值、研发投入、管线，跨度可达数百倍），先取对数再标准化，避免头部企业垄断、还原数量级的真实差异：
Because net profit can be negative (losses), negative values are first truncated to 0 during standardization (loss-making companies score 0 on this item); because the in-development pipeline is 0 for many companies, it is standardized after taking log₁₀(pipeline+1) (smoothing); and the number of proprietary products is linearly standardized.
净利润因存在亏损（负值），标准化时先将负值截为 0（亏损企业该项计 0 分）；在研管线因大量企业为 0，取 log₁₀(管线+1) 后再标准化（平滑处理）；自主产品数取线性标准化。
The weight design reflects the value orientation of "equal emphasis on quality and innovation, contribution as the floor, and scale as the base": quality accounts for 30% (profit and market value each half), innovation accounts for 30% (R&D investment and in-development pipeline each half), contribution accounts for 20%, and scale accounts for 20%. This structure ensures that "service-outsourcing/distribution companies with high revenue but low innovation and low proprietary contribution" do not monopolize the top by virtue of large revenue, while "biotech companies with high R&D and a rich pipeline but not yet profitable" can be fairly compensated on the innovation dimension.
权重设计体现"质量与创新并重、贡献兜底、规模作底盘"的价值取向：质量占 30%（盈利与市值各半），创新占 30%（研发投入与在研管线各半），贡献占 20%，规模占 20%。这一结构使得"高营收但低创新、低自主贡献的服务外包/流通企业"不会因营收大而垄断榜首，"高研发、高管线但尚未盈利的生物科技企业"也能在创新维度得到公平补偿。
三、指标与权重依据
| 指标 | 方向 | 处理 | 权重 | 所属维度 | 依据 |
|---|
| 营业收入 | 正向 | log₁₀ | 0.20 | 规模 | 市场体量与抗风险底盘 |
| 净利润 | 正向 | 亏损截0 | 0.15 | 质量 | 盈利能力与现金流 |
| 总市值 | 正向 | log₁₀ | 0.15 | 质量 | 资本市场认可度 |
| 研发投入 | 正向 | log₁₀ | 0.15 | 创新 | 持续研发意愿与能力储备 |
| 在研管线 | 正向 | log₁₀(+1) | 0.15 | 创新 | 未来产品储备深度 |
| 自主创新/诊断产品数 | 正向 | 线性 | 0.20 | 贡献 | 自主创新贡献（CPPPS 特色） |
Scope note: for the "proprietary products" of the contribution dimension, biopharmaceutical companies are counted by the number of approved innovative drugs (including Class 1 new drugs, innovative biologics, and innovative vaccines); gene-sequencing, in-vitro-diagnostics, and biomaterials companies are counted by their proprietary core products/proprietary testing items; and CRO/CDMO service-outsourcing companies score 0 because they do not hold proprietary drugs/products (their contribution is reflected through R&D investment, revenue, and profit). The "in-development pipeline" counts only self-owned innovative drugs/biologics; CRO/CDMO projects on hand are contract-manufacturing orders rather than self-owned pipelines and are not counted. This scope is intended to strip away the inflation of rankings caused by "imitation, agency, private labeling, and pure contract manufacturing," highlighting proprietary innovation capability.
口径说明：贡献维度的"自主产品"对生物药企业计创新药（含 1 类新药与创新生物药、创新疫苗）获批数量，对基因测序、体外诊断、生物材料企业按其自主核心产品/自主检测项目计，对 CRO/CDMO 服务外包企业因其不持有自主药品/产品而计 0（其贡献通过研发投入、营收与利润体现）。"在研管线"仅统计自持创新药/生物药，CRO/CDMO 在手项目属代工订单、非自持管线，不计入。此口径旨在剥离"仿制、代理、贴牌、纯代工"对排名的虚增，突出自主创新能力。
四、数据来源与局限性
Operating revenue and net profit use approximate values from listed-company annual reports (disclosed by the Shanghai, Shenzhen, Hong Kong, and Nasdaq exchanges); total market value uses approximate values in public-market terms; R&D investment uses approximate values from the "R&D expense" item in annual reports; and the number of in-development pipelines and proprietary products is approximately counted based on NMPA (National Medical Products Administration) approval information for new drugs/innovative medical devices/innovative vaccines and companies' pipeline disclosures. All values are approximate values from public common knowledge, uniformly marked "subject to official sources." This model does not include deeper indicators such as R&D intensity (R&D/revenue ratio), patent counts, licensing/overseas revenue, and the impact of medical-insurance negotiation and volume-based procurement; moreover, there are timing and statistical differences in the standards for market value, pipeline, and proprietary products. The ranking is for research and reference only.
营业收入、净利润采用上市公司年报（上交所、深交所、港交所、纳斯达克披露）公开近似值；总市值采用公开市场口径近似值；研发投入采用年报"研发费用"科目近似值；在研管线、自主产品数量依据国家药品监督管理局（NMPA）新药/创新医疗器械/创新疫苗获批信息及企业管线披露信息近似统计。所有数值均为公开常识近似值，一律标注"以官方为准"。本模型未纳入研发强度（研发/营收比）、专利数量、授权许可/出海收入、医保谈判与集采影响等更深层指标，且市值、管线、自主产品口径存在时点与统计差异，排名仅供研究与参考。
五、参考文献
- 各上市公司年度报告（上交所、深交所、港交所、纳斯达克信息披露平台）。
- 国家药品监督管理局（NMPA）：药品/医疗器械/疫苗注册审批与创新产品公示。
- 国家医疗保障局：国家医保药品目录与谈判准入信息。
- 中共中央、国务院：《"健康中国2030"规划纲要》。
- 国家发展改革委：《"十四五"生物经济发展规划》。
- 国务院：《"十四五"医药工业发展规划》。
- 公开市场总市值数据（中证、港交所、纳斯达克口径，近似值）。