National Institutes Of Health Funding Research Articles

A Scholarly Dialog on Recent Trends in National Institutes of Health's Funding for the Thyroid Field.

Background: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the major funding agency for biomedical research in the United States. To initiate a scholarly dialog about research and career development in the thyroid field, here we reviewed recent trends in NIH funding for this area. We used the Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool database to estimate the level of NIH extramural support during 2013-2022 (number of active grants/year and $amount/year weighed by the total number of active grants/year and $amount/year), provided by the NIH to the thyroid field. We determined that in 2013, the NIH supported ∼140 grants/year, totaling almost $50 million/year, the majority in the form of R01 grants. Within the thyroid field, support was evenly split between thyroid cancer and thyroid hormone metabolism and action subareas. In the subsequent years (2014-2022), the total number of active grants peaked at 150/year ($55 million) in 2014 but progressively decreased to about 100 active grants/year ($30 million) in 2022. This trend occurred while the NIH budget increased from $29 to $46 billion/year. Globally, the number of thyroid-related publications increased by ∼70% during the study period, and the fractional contribution of several countries remained relatively stable, except for China which increased by ∼600%. Remarkably, the fraction of thyroid-related publications in the United States sponsored by the NIH decreased from 5.5% to 3.1% of the global number. Conclusion: These results constitute a very concerning scenario for research and education in the thyroid field. We appeal to the NIH, the professional societies in endocrinology and thyroidology, and all other relevant stakeholders such as thyroid-related professionals and thyroid patients to engage in further discussions to identify the root causes of this trend and implement an action plan to stabilize and eventually reverse this situation.

The Intersection of Cardiovascular Health and Maternal Health: Portfolio Analysis of Federal Grant Funding 2016-2021.

Background: The United States has high and increasing rates of maternal morbidity and mortality, large proportions of which are related to cardiovascular health (CVH). Methods: We searched for National Institutes of Health (NIH) supported research as well as that of two other Agencies in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for fiscal years (FY) 2016-2021. Grants included maternal health conditions or exposures across all pregnancy stages, but excluded grants that focused entirely on birth, neonatal, infant/childhood outcomes. Results were manually curated by reviewing the abstract and specific aims. Grants deemed to be relevant were grouped by category. Results: Between FY 2016-2021, overall Maternal Health grants remained unchanged at an average of 1.4% of total DHHS grant funding. Maternal CVH-specific (MCVH) funding amounted to $278,926,105 for 755 grants, $191,344,649 was for 534 Type-1 grants, representing a twofold increase. Non-NIH DHHS agencies most commonly funded general Maternal Health related to CVH; NIH focused funding classified as hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, maternal morbidity and mortality, obesity, and diabetes. Non-NIH DHSS Agencies most commonly funded clinical applied research. In addition to clinical applied grants, NIH funded substantial proportions of grants classified as basic research, clinical trials, and/or translational. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) MCVH grants studied participants in the pre-partum period (78.5%), followed by the post-partum period (50.5%), with relatively few in pre-pregnancy and peri-partum periods (10.8% and 9.7%, respectively); at the NIH level, the peri-partum period had better representation at 20.3%, whereas the pre-pregnancy period remained low at 9.9%. Conclusions: Federal grant funding for maternal health including MCVH increased at the same rate as its funding for overall research, and represented only 1.4% of overall total funding. The pre-pregnancy period was understudied in overall NIH funding and represents a gap area whereby funding agencies could further foster research advances.

Factors Associated with Research Productivity and National Institutes of Health Funding in Academic Otology.

Bibliometrics, such as the Hirsch index (h-index) and the more recently developed relative citation ratio (RCR), are utilized to evaluate research productivity. Our study evaluates demographics, research productivity, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding in academic otology. Academic otologists were identified, and their demographics were collected using institutional faculty profiles (N = 265). Funding data were obtained using the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Reports Database. The h-index was calculated using Scopus and mean (m-RCR) and weighted RCR (w-RCR) were calculated using the NIH iCite tool. H-index (aOR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10-1.27, p < 0.001), but not m-RCR (aOR 1.50, 95% CI 0.97-2.31, p = 0.069) or w-RCR (aOR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99-1.00, p = 0.231), was associated with receiving NIH funding. Men had greater h-index (16 vs. 9, p < 0.001) and w-RCR (51.8 vs. 23.0, p < 0.001), but not m-RCR (1.3 vs. 1.3, p = 0.269) than women. Higher academic rank was associated with greater h-index and w-RCR (p < 0.001). Among assistant professors, men had greater h-index than women (9.0 vs. 8.0, p = 0.025). At career duration 11-20 years, men had greater h-index (14.0 vs. 8.0, p = 0.009) and w-RCR (52.7 vs. 25.8, p = 0.022) than women. The h-index has a strong relationship with NIH funding in academic otology. Similar h-index, m-RCR, and w-RCR between men and women across most academic ranks and career durations suggests production of similarly impactful research. The m-RCR may correct some deficiencies of time-dependent bibliometrics and its consideration in academic promotion and research funding allocation may promote representation of women in otology. N/A Laryngoscope, 2024.

Toward decolonized fiscal relationships between universities and community organizations: lessons learned from the California community engagement alliance against COVID-19

ABSTRACT In September 2020, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) allocated $12 million to support engagement with historically marginalized communities hardest hit by COVID-19. The award was designed to mobilize community-engagement in pandemic response, and to support partnerships as part of the NIH Community Engagement Alliance (CEAL) Against COVID-19 Disparities. All aspects of the award were fast-tracked, and NIH utilized a ‘more flexible’ funding mechanism (OTA) to facilitate swift distribution of funds. In this paper, we draw upon an analysis of findings from a 2021 survey conducted with 11 California CEAL sites representing urban and rural settings, private and public universities, and established and new community partners and qualitative analysis of 2020–2022 site-wide meeting minutes. We describe the challenges posed at the federal (e.g. NIH funding), university, and community–university partnership levels as well as opportunities and creative workarounds. Challenges include delays in subcontracts and payments to community partners that undermined trust and reproduced unequal and hierarchical power relationships. We build upon our findings and collective experience to propose a framework for decolonized fiscal relationships between universities and community partners which contains key recommendations for funders, universities, and community partners.

Academic accomplishments of Black neurosurgeons in the United States.

Neurosurgery has remained relatively homogeneous in terms of racial and gender diversity, trailing behind national demographics. Less than 5% of practicing neurosurgeons in the United States identify as Black/African American (AA). Research and academic productivity are highly emphasized within the field and are crucial for career advancement at academic institutions. They also serve as important avenues for mentorship and recruitment of diverse trainees and medical students. This study aimed to summarize the academic accomplishments of AA neurosurgeons by assessing publication quantity, h-index, and federal grant funding. One hundred thirteen neurosurgery residency training programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education in 2022 were included in this study. The American Society of Black Neurosurgeons registry was reviewed to analyze the academic metrics of self-identified Black or AA academic neurosurgeons. Data on the academic rank, leadership position, publication quantity, h-index, and race of neurosurgical faculty in the US were obtained from publicly available information and program websites. Fifty-five AA and 1393 non-AA neurosurgeons were identified. Sixty percent of AA neurosurgeons were fewer than 10 years out from residency training, compared to 37.4% of non-AA neurosurgeons (p = 0.001). AA neurosurgeons had a median 32 (IQR 9, 85) publications compared to 52 (IQR 22, 122) for non-AA neurosurgeons (p = 0.019). AA neurosurgeons had a median h-index of 12 (IQR 5, 24) compared to 16 (IQR 9, 31) for non-AA colleagues (p = 0.02). Following stratification by academic rank, these trends did not persist. No statistically significant differences in the median amounts of awarded National Institutes of Health funding (p = 0.194) or level of professorship attained (p = 0.07) were observed between the two cohorts. Racial disparities between AA and non-AA neurosurgeons exist in publication quantity and h-index overall but not when these groups are stratified by academic rank. Given that AA neurosurgeons comprise more junior faculty, it is expected that their academic accomplishments will increase as more enter academic practice and current neurosurgeons advance into more senior positions.

Examining who is conducting and leading National Institute of Health-funded research in U.S. schools of nursing

BackgroundNursing science is essential for generating a unique body of knowledge that is foundational to the academic discipline of nursing. PurposeThe goal of this analysis is to detail the education and licensing of faculty and leadership in research-intensive schools of nursing and to present the current data on the National Institute of Health (NIH) funding patterns in schools of nursing. MethodsThe faculty composition analysis focused on the 40 U.S. schools of nursing receiving the most NIH funding through faculty serving as PIs on grants awarded in 2023. For the NIH funding patterns analysis, data were extracted from the NIH RePORTER database. DiscussionOf the top 30 NIH-funded Schools of Nursing, all the Deans and Associate Deans of Academic Affairs are educated or licensed as nurses; whereas only 55% of Associate Deans of Research are educated or licensed as nurses. In 2022, nearly half of the top-ranked schools of nursing had less than half of their NIH funding awarded to faculty who are trained and licensed as nurses ConlusionThe current trends in the research enterprise in schools of nursing implore us to assess if we are adequately training nurses to advance nursing science and more importantly to serve as leaders of nursing science.

Cross sectional study of Twitter (X) use among academic anesthesiology departments in the United States.

Twitter (recently renamed X) is used by academic anesthesiology departments as a social media platform for various purposes. We hypothesized that Twitter (X) use would be prevalent among academic anesthesiology departments and that the number of tweets would vary by region, physician faculty size, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) research funding rank. We performed a descriptive study of Twitter (X) use by academic anesthesiology departments (i.e. those with a residency program) in 2022. Original tweets were collected using a Twitter (X) analytics tool. Summary statistics were reported for tweet number and content. The median number of tweets was compared after stratifying by region, physician faculty size, and NIH funding rank. Among 166 academic anesthesiology departments, there were 73 (44.0%) that had a Twitter (X) account in 2022. There were 3,578 original tweets during the study period and the median number of tweets per department was 21 (25th-75th = 0, 75) with most tweets (55.8%) announcing general departmental news and a smaller number highlighting social events (12.5%), research (11.1%), recruiting (7.1%), DEI activities (5.2%), and trainee experiences (4.1%). There was no significant difference in the median number of tweets by region (P = 0.81). The median number of tweets differed significantly by physician faculty size (P<0.001) with larger departments tweeting more and also by NIH funding rank (P = 0.005) with highly funded departments tweeting more. In 2022, we found that less than half of academic anesthesiology departments had a Twitter (X) account, and the median number of annual tweets per account was relatively low. Overall, Twitter (X) use was less common than anticipated among academic anesthesiology departments and most tweets focused on promotion of departmental activities or individual faculty. There may be opportunities for more widespread and effective use of Twitter (X) by academic anesthesiology departments including education about anesthesiology as a specialty.

Diversity of Backgrounds and Academic Accomplishments for Presidents Elected to Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Societies in the United States

BackgroundAcademic accomplishments and demographics for presidents of hip and knee arthroplasty societies are poorly understood. This study compares the characteristics of presidents nominated to serve the Hip Society, Knee Society, and American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons. MethodsThis was a cross-sectional study of arthroplasty presidents in the United States (1990 to 2022). Curriculum vitae and academic websites were analyzed for demographic, training, bibliometric, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding data. Comparisons were made between organizations and time periods (1990 to 2005 versus 2006 to 2022). ResultsThere were 97 appointments of 78 unique arthroplasty presidents (80%). Most presidents were male (99%) and Caucasian (95%). There was 1 woman (1%) and 5 non-Caucasian presidents (2% Asian, 3% Hispanic). There were no differences in demographics between the 3 arthroplasty organizations and the 2 time periods (P > .05). Presidents were appointed at 55 ± 10 years old, which was on average 24 years after completion of residency training. Most presidents had arthroplasty fellowship training (68%), and the most common were the Hospital for Special Surgery (21%) and Massachusetts General Hospital (8%). The median h-index was 53 resulting from 191 peer-reviewed publications, which was similar between the 3 organizations (P > .05). There were 2 presidents who had NIH funding (2%), and there were no differences in NIH funding between the 3 organizations (P > .05). ConclusionsArthroplasty society presidents have diverse training pedigrees, high levels of scholarly output, and similar demographics. There may be future opportunities to promote diversity and inclusion among the highest levels of leadership in total joint arthroplasty.

Abstract A090: Gender Disparities in the National Institutes of Health Funding for Breast Oncology

Abstract Introduction As a matter of course, there has been an under-representation of women in academic medicine, resulting in discriminatory distribution of research grants. This study examines the trend of funding allocation of R01 grants in Breast oncology by the National Institutes of Health with specific focus on the distribution of funding between gender. Methods The data were retrieved from the NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditure) using breast oncology-related search terms from 2018-2021. The gender was categorized using Genderize. The number of citations, publications, H-index, and seniority were obtained from Scopus and Web of Science in December 2022. Consumer Price Index was used to adjust funding amount to 2021 equivalent U.S. dollars. Linear regression was used for analysis. Results A total of 885 NIH-funded R01 grants amounting to $444.6 million were awarded for breast oncology research. Women (n=390; 44.1% [95% CI: 40.8%-47.3%]) received relatively fewer grants than men (n=495; 55.9% [95% CI: 52.7%-59.2%]). From 2018-2021, there was a significant increase in the number of grants awarded among both men (90 to 155, p&amp;lt;0.01) and women (71 to 115, p=0.036). Similarly, there was a significant increase in the grant amount (in millions) awarded among men (43.4 to 76.5, p&amp;lt;0.01) but not in women (36.7 to 56.1, p=0.11). Of the 212 co-PIs, 133 (62.7% [95% CI: 56.2%-69.2%]) were men and 76 (37.3% [95% CI: 30.8%-43.8%]) were women. There was no significant difference in h-index (48 vs 44, p=0.12), number of publications (158 vs 138, p=0.08), and citations (13272 vs 8092, p=0.06) between the male and female PIs. Funding amount was significantly associated with number of publications (β=0.35, p&amp;lt;0.01), seniority (β=0.25, p&amp;lt;0.01) and institution (p&amp;lt;0.01). Conclusion Our analysis shows continued gender disparity as only 44% of total R01 grants were awarded towards females for breast oncology between the fiscal years 2018 to 2021. Though the proportion of discrepancy is lower as compared to other malignancies. A collaborative effort is still needed to bridge the gap and advance gender equality. Citation Format: Janta Ukrani, Aruba Sohail, Sarah Khan, Ibrahim Zahid, Muhammad Zain Farooq, Michael Vishal Jaglal. Gender Disparities in the National Institutes of Health Funding for Breast Oncology [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: Advances in Breast Cancer Research; 2023 Oct 19-22; San Diego, California. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(3 Suppl_1):Abstract nr A090.

Gender disparities in the National Institutes of Health funding for gastrointestinal oncology.

763 Background: Traditionally, there has been an under-representation of women in academic fields, thus making them less likely to receive grants. This study examines the trend of funding allocation of R01 grants in Gastrointestinal oncology by the National Institutes of Health with specific focus on the distribution of funding between gender. Methods: The data were retrieved from the NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditure) using gastrointestinal oncology-related search terms from 2018-2021. The gender was categorized using Genderize. The number of citations, publications, H-index, and seniority were obtained from Scopus and Web of Science in December 2022. Consumer Price Index was used to adjust funding amount to 2021 equivalent U.S. dollars. Linear regression was used for analysis. Results: A total of 1426 NIH-funded R01 grants amounting to 626.6 million were awarded for gastrointestinal oncology research. Women (n=391; 27.4% [95% CI: 25.1%-29.7%]) received fewer grants than men (n=1035; 72.6% [95% CI: 70.3%-74.9%]). From 2018-2021, there was no significant difference in the number of grants awarded among both men (263 to 259, p=0.65) and women (90 to 105, p=0.12). Similarly, there was no significant change in the grant amount (in millions) awarded among men (114.7 to 111.2, p=0.86) and women (39.8 to 47.9, p=0.19). Colorectal cancer accounted for the greatest proportion of grants (n=528; 37.0% [95% CI: 34.5%-39.5%]), amounting to 235.9 million. Of the 481 co-PIs, 405 (84.2% [95% CI: 80.9%-87.5%]) were men and 76 (15.8% [95% CI: 12.5%-19.1%]) were women. Male PIs as compared to female PIs had a higher h-index (52 vs 40, p&lt;0.001), a higher number of publications (160 vs 111, p&lt;0.001), and were cited more (13324 vs 6371, p&lt;0.001). Funding amount was significantly associated with gender (β=0.06, p=0.02), number of publications (β=0.17, p&lt;0.01) and institution (p&lt;0.01). Conclusions: Our analysis shows continued gender disparity as only 27% of total R01 grants towards gastrointestinal oncology were granted to females during the fiscal years of 2018-2021. Thus, a collaborative effort is needed to close the divide and advance gender equality. [Table: see text]

Analysis of NIH K99/R00 awards and the career progression of awardees.

Many postdoctoral fellows and scholars who hope to secure tenure-track faculty positions in the United States apply to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for a Pathway to Independence Award. This award has two phases (K99 and R00) and provides funding for up to 5 years. Using NIH data for the period 2006-2022, we report that ~230 K99 awards were made every year, representing up to ~$250 million annual investment. About 40% of K99 awardees were women and ~89% of K99 awardees went on to receive an R00 award annually. Institutions with the most NIH funding produced the most recipients of K99 awards and recruited the most recipients of R00 awards. The time between a researcher starting an R00 award and receiving a major NIH award (such as an R01) ranged between 4.6 and 7.4 years, and was significantly longer for women, for those who remained at their home institution, and for those hired by an institution that was not one of the 25 institutions with the most NIH funding. Shockingly, there has yet to be a K99 awardee at a historically Black college or university. We go on to show how K99 awardees flow to faculty positions, and to identify various factors that influence the future success of individual researchers and, therefore, also influence the composition of biomedical faculty at universities in the United States.

Analysis of NIH K99/R00 awards and the career progression of awardees

Many postdoctoral fellows and scholars who hope to secure tenure-track faculty positions in the United States apply to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for a Pathway to Independence Award. This award has two phases (K99 and R00) and provides funding for up to 5 years. Using NIH data for the period 2006–2022, we report that ~230 K99 awards were made every year, representing up to ~$250 million annual investment. About 40% of K99 awardees were women and ~89% of K99 awardees went on to receive an R00 award annually. Institutions with the most NIH funding produced the most recipients of K99 awards and recruited the most recipients of R00 awards. The time between a researcher starting an R00 award and receiving a major NIH award (such as an R01) ranged between 4.6 and 7.4 years, and was significantly longer for women, for those who remained at their home institution, and for those hired by an institution that was not one of the 25 institutions with the most NIH funding. Shockingly, there has yet to be a K99 awardee at a historically Black college or university. We go on to show how K99 awardees flow to faculty positions, and to identify various factors that influence the future success of individual researchers and, therefore, also influence the composition of biomedical faculty at universities in the United States.

Evaluating Funding for Authors Achieving High Citations vs. Online Popularity.

The Altmetric score is a validated tool that measures online attention of scientific studies. A relationship between government/industry funding for authors and their study's citations have been previously demonstrated. It is not known whether funding is related to greater online attention. We hypothesize authors publishing studies achieving greater online attention (higher Altmetric scores) receive greater monetary support from industry while authors publishing studies achieving critical acclaim (more citations) receive greater monetary support from the National Institute of Health (NIH). Top spine surgery studies between 2010 and 2021 were selected based on Altmetric scores and citation number. The Open Payments Database was accessed to evaluate industry financial relationships while the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool was accessed to evaluate NIH funding. Payments were compared between groups and analyzed with the Student t-test, analysis of variance, and chi square analysis. Alpha <0.05. There were 60 and 51 authors with payment data in the top 50 Altmetric and top 50 citation studies, respectively, with eight authors having studies in both groups. Total industry payments between groups were not markedly different. The eight authors with studies in both groups received markedly more industry payments for consulting, travel/lodging, and faculty/speaking fees. Authors with articles in both groups (50%) were significantly more likely to receive NIH support, compared with authors of the top Altmetric articles (5%; P < 0.001) and top citation articles (12%; P < 0.001). Authors receiving NIH support received significantly less industry payments compared with authors not receiving NIH support ($148,544 versus $2,159,526; P < 0.001). These findings reject our hypothesis: no notable differences for industry payments and NIH funding between authors for top Altmetric and citation studies. Authors receiving funding from industry versus the NIH are generally two distinct groups, but there is a small group supported by both. These studies achieve both critical acclaim (citations) and online popularity (Altmetric scores). Data can be available on reasonable request.

Musculoskeletal health: an ecological study assessing disease burden and research funding

Exacerbated by an aging population, musculoskeletal diseases are a chronic and growing problem in the United States that impose significant health and economic burdens. The objective of this study was to analyze the correlation between the burden of diseases and the federal funds assigned to health-related research through the National Institutes of Health (NIH). An ecological study design was used to examine the relationship between NIH research funding and disease burden for 60 disease categories. We used the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study 2019 to measure disease burden and the NIH Research, Condition, and Disease Categories (RCDC) data to identify 60 disease categories aligned with available GBD data. NIH funding data was obtained from the RCDC system and the NIH Office of Budget. Using linear regression models, we observed that musculoskeletal diseases were among the most underfunded (i.e., negative residuals from the model) with respect to disease burden. Musculoskeletal diseases were underfunded, with neck pain being the most underfunded at only 0.83% of expected funding. Low back pain, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis were also underfunded at 13.88%, 35.08%, and 66.26%, respectively. Musculoskeletal diseases were the leading cause of years lived with disability and the third leading cause in terms of prevalence and disability-adjusted life years. Despite the increasing burden of these diseases, the allocation of NIH funding to the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) has remained low compared to other institutes. Despite the increasing health burden and economic cost of $980 billion annually, the allocation of NIH funding to the NIAMS has remained low compared to other institutes. These findings suggest that the NIH may need to reassess its allocation of research funding to align with the current health challenges of our country. Furthermore, these clinically relevant observations highlight the need to increase research funding for musculoskeletal diseases and improve their prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. No funding.

Assessing the Relationship between Radiology Department Research Funding and Institutional Community Inclusion and Investment.

Background Health care access disparities and lack of inclusion in clinical research have been well documented for marginalized populations. However, few studies exist examining the research funding of institutions that serve historically underserved groups. Purpose To assess the relationship between research funding awarded to radiology departments by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Lown Institute Hospitals Index rankings for inclusivity and community benefit. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included radiology departments awarded funding from the NIH between 2017 and 2021. The 2021 Lown Institute Hospitals Index rankings for inclusivity and community benefit were examined. The inclusivity metric measures how similar a hospital's patient population is to the surrounding community in terms of income, race and ethnicity, and education level. The community benefit metric measures charity care spending, Medicaid as a proportion of patient revenue, and other community benefit spending. Linear regression and Pearson correlation coefficients (r values) were used to evaluate the relationship between aggregate NIH radiology department research funding and measures of inclusivity and community benefit. Results Seventy-five radiology departments that received NIH funding ranging from $195 000 to $216 879 079 were included. A negative correlation was observed between the amount of radiology department research funding received and institutional rankings for serving patients from racial and/or ethnic minorities (r = -0.34; P < .001), patients with low income (r = -0.44; P < .001), and patients with lower levels of education (r = -0.46; P < .001). No correlation was observed between the amount of radiology department research funding and institutional rankings for charity care spending (r = -0.19; P = .06), community investment (r = -0.04; P = .68), and Medicaid as a proportion of patient revenue (r = -0.10; P = .22). Conclusion Radiology departments that received more NIH research funding were less likely to serve patients from racial and/or ethnic minorities and patients who had low income or lower levels of education. © RSNA, 2024 See also the editorial by Mehta and Rosen in this issue.

Promotional Language (Hype) in Abstracts of Publications of National Institutes of Health–Funded Research, 1985-2020

Investigators applying for National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding increasingly use promotional language (or hype) that has the potential to undermine objective evaluation. Whether or not the same investigators use hype in subsequent research reports has yet to be investigated. To assess changes in the use of hype in journal abstracts reporting research funded by the NIH and to compare those trends with previously reported trends in the associated NIH funding applications. This cross-sectional study assessed trends (from 1985 to 2020) in the use of promotional adjectives in abstracts of journal articles reporting NIH-funded research, and then compared those trends with previously reported trends for the associated NIH funding applications. Articles included in analyses had abstracts available in PubMed. Absolute change for the 139 adjective forms that have previously been identified as representing hype in NIH funding applications was measured as the difference in frequency between 1985 and 2020. Relative change was measured as the percentage change in frequency in 2020 relative to 1985, or the first year of occurrence. Consistency of change was measured by the rank order correlation (Kendall τ). Concordance between longitudinal trends in the journal abstracts and NIH funding applications was measured by the rank-order cross-correlation. In a total of 2 394 480 journal abstracts, all 139 adjective forms were identified in 2 793 592 total occurrences. Among these adjectives, 133 increased in absolute frequency by 5335 words per million (wpm), with a mean (SD) relative increase of 1404% (2371%). The largest absolute increases were for novel (524 wpm), important (414 wpm), and key (378 wpm). The largest relative increases were for scalable (22 wpm [19 964%]), unmet (23 wpm [12 126%]), and tailored (40 wpm [8169%]). The mean (SD) correlation for all adjectives was 0.70 (0.30) with 95 adjectives showing a strong positive correlation (τ > 0.7; P < .001), 24 a moderate positive correlation (0.5 < τ < 0.7; P < .001), and 3 a moderate negative correlation (-0.5 < τ < -0.7; P < .001). The mean (SD) cross-correlation was 0.64 (0.19) with 61 of the 139 adjectives showing a strong positive cross-correlations (τ > 0.7; P < .001), 53 a moderate positive cross-correlations (0.5 < τ < 0.7; P < .001), and 3 a moderate negative cross-correlation (-0.7 < τ < -0.5; P < .001). In this analysis of journal abstracts reporting NIH-funded research from 1985 to 2020, levels of promotional language were found to be increasing and trends were closely associated with previously reported trends in the related NIH funding applications. This suggests that increasing levels of salesmanship may in part be a downstream effect of salesmanship infused during earlier stages of the research cascade.

National Institutes of Health Funding for Tuberculosis Comorbidities Is Disproportionate to Their Epidemiologic Impact.

Tuberculosis (TB) is a leading infectious killer worldwide. We systematically searched the National Institutes of Health Research, Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER) website to compare research funding for key TB comorbidities-undernutrition, alcohol use, human immunodeficiency virus, tobacco use, and diabetes-and found a large mismatch between the population attributable fraction of these risk factors and the funding allocated to them.

Distinguishing between translational science and translational research in CTSA pilot studies: A collaborative project across 12 CTSA hubs.

The institutions (i.e., hubs) making up the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded network of Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) share a mission to turn observations into interventions to improve public health. Recently, the focus of the CTSAs has turned increasingly from translational research (TR) to translational science (TS). The current NIH Funding Opportunity Announcement (PAR-21-293) for CTSAs stipulates that pilot studies funded through the CTSAs must be "focused on understanding a scientific or operational principle underlying a step of the translational process with the goal of developing generalizable solutions to accelerate translational research." This new directive places Pilot Program administrators in the position of arbiters with the task of distinguishing between TR and TS projects. The purpose of this study was to explore the utility of a set of TS principles set forth by NCATS for distinguishing between TR and TS. Twelve CTSA hubs collaborated to generate a list of Translational Science Principles questions. Twenty-nine Pilot Program administrators used these questions to evaluate 26 CTSA-funded pilot studies. Factor analysis yielded three factors: Generalizability/Efficiency, Disruptive Innovation, and Team Science. The Generalizability/Efficiency factor explained the largest amount of variance in the questions and was significantly able to distinguish between projects that were verified as TS or TR (t = 6.92, p < .001) by an expert panel. The seven questions in this factor may be useful for informing deliberations regarding whether a study addresses a question that aligns with NCATS' vision of TS.

Bibliometric and social network analysis of a Clinical and Translational Resource awardee: An Oklahoma experience 2014-2021.

Social Network Analysis is a method of analyzing coauthorship networks or relationships through graph theory. Institutional Development Award (IDeA) Networks for Clinical and Translational Research (IDeA-CTR) was designed to expand the capability for clinical and translational research to enhance National Institutes of Health funding. All publications from a cohort of clinical and translational scientists in Oklahoma were collected through a PubMed search for 2014 through 2021 in October 2022. For this study's bibliometric portion, we pulled the citations from iCite in November of 2022. There were 2,391 articles published in 1,019 journals. The number of papers published by year increased from 56 in 2014 to 448 in 2021. The network had an average of 6.4 authors per paper, with this increasing by year from 5.3 in 2014 to 6.9 in 2021. The average journal impact factor for the overall network was 7.19, with a range from 0.08 to 202.73. The Oklahoma Shared Clinical and Translational Resources (OSCTR) network is a small world network with relatively weak ties. This study provides an overview of coauthorship in an IDeA-CTR collaboration. We show the growth and structure of coauthorship in OSCTR, highlighting the importance of understanding and fostering collaboration within research networks.

Training and Accompaniment Model for Expanding ADRD Research in LMICs – The Atlantic Fellows for Equity in Brain Health Experience

AbstractBackgroundOften, global health programs are designed to train individuals from low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) with training provided in more resourced regions. Subsequently, the trainees return to their home community with limited additional resources. When research is funded, capacity‐building is rarely prioritized and partnership for core administrative and study management needs is absent. A program of ‘accompaniment’ where programs partner with trainees after their training period is less frequent and could alter the landscape of research capacity building for dementia.MethodsThe Atlantic Fellows for Equity in Brain Health program provides both a one‐year in‐residence learning experience and seeks to accompany fellows as they return to their home community. Resources and activities in the post‐training period include funding for small pilot projects, networking and community building, training in grants management, support for logistic and administrative activities related to grants, partnering with grant and manuscript writing and assistance with data collection and management.ResultsOver seven years, Atlantic Fellows have received 137 Pilots Awards ($25k each) for activities in 41 countries. Many of these awards serve as launching pads for future funding. For example, the Multi‐Partner Consortium for Dementia Research in Latin America (ReDLat) grew out of a Pilot awarded to an Atlantic Fellow from Latin America uniting 14 research centers across six Latin American countries aiming to identify the unique genetic and social determinants of health that drive Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias. Work is underway and includes prominent capacity building activities with more than $12M in committed from global partners. More than 1454 individuals have been enrolled. Eleven Atlantic Fellows are directly involved in the project. Other examples include work in Brazil that has now been transformed into US National Institutes of Health funding. New work is currently launched in East Africa leading to competitive research applications under review.ConclusionsAn intentional model of accompaniment can achieve substantial impact on dementia research in LMICs.