National Institutes Of Health Funding Research Articles

Analysis of Academic Accomplishments and Demographics for Elected Presidents of National Orthopedic Surgery Organizations in the United States.

This study analyzed the academic accomplishments and demographics of elected presidents of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), American Orthopaedic Association (AOA), and American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS). Curriculum vitae and internet-based resources were reviewed to collect demographics, training characteristics, bibliometrics, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) research funding of contemporary presidents (1990-2020). Eighty presidents were included. Most presidents were men (97%), and 4% of presidents were non-White (3% Black and 1% Hispanic). Few had an additional graduate degree (4% MBA, 3% MS, 1% MPH, 1% PhD). Ten orthopedic surgery residency programs trained 47% of these presidents. Most had fellowship training (59%), and the top three were hand surgery (11%), pediatric orthopedics (11%), and adult reconstruction (10%). Twenty-nine presidents (36%) participated in a traveling fellowship. The mean age at appointment was 58±5 years, which was 27 years since residency graduation. The mean h-index was 36±23, resulting from 150±126 peer-reviewed manuscripts. Orthopedic surgery presidents had more peer-reviewed manuscripts (150±126) than chairs (73±81) and program directors (27±32) (P<.001). AOA presidents had the highest mean h-index (42±21) compared with AAOS (38±27) and ABOS (25±16) presidents (P=.035). Nineteen presidents had NIH funding (24%). More presidents had NIH funding in the AOA (39%) and AAOS (25%) than the ABOS (0%) (P=.007). Orthopedic surgery presidents possess high levels of scholarly output. AOA presidents had the highest h-index values and prevalence of NIH funding. Females and racial minorities remain underrepresented at the highest levels of leadership. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(1):e45-e51.].

National Institutes of Health funding among vascular surgeons is rare

BackgroundThe National Institutes of Health (NIH) is an essential source of funding for vascular surgeons conducting research. NIH funding is frequently used to benchmark institutional and individual research productivity, help determine eligibility for academic promotion, and as a measure of scientific quality. We sought to appraise the current scope of NIH funding to vascular surgeons by appraising the characteristics of NIH-funded investigators and projects. In addition, we also sought to determine whether funded grants addressed recent Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) research priorities. MethodsIn April 2022, we queried the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER) database for active projects. We only included projects that had a vascular surgeon as a principal investigator. Grant characteristics were extracted from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results database. Principal investigator demographics and academic background information were identified by searching institution profiles. ResultsThere were 55 active NIH awards given to 41 vascular surgeons. Only 1% (41/4037) of all vascular surgeons in the United States receive NIH funding. Funded vascular surgeons are an average of 16.3 years out of training; 37% (n = 15) are women. The majority of awards (58%; n = 32) were R01 grants. Among the active NIH-funded projects, 75% (n = 41) are basic or translational research projects, and 25% (n = 14) are clinical or health services research projects. Abdominal aortic aneurysm and peripheral arterial disease are the most commonly funded disease areas and together accounted for 54% (n = 30) of projects. Three SVS research priorities are not addressed by any of the current NIH-funded projects. ConclusionsNIH funding of vascular surgeons is rare and predominantly consists of basic or translational science projects focused on abdominal aortic aneurysm and peripheral arterial disease research. Women are well-represented among funded vascular surgeons. Although the majority of SVS research priorities receive NIH funding, three SVS research priorities are yet to be addressed by NIH-funded projects. Future efforts should focus on increasing the number of vascular surgeons receiving NIH grants and ensuring all SVS research priorities receive NIH funding.

Editor's Spotlight/Take 5: Fewer Than One in 20 Current Academic Orthopaedic Surgeons Have Obtained National Institutes of Health Funding.

1Editor-in-Chief, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®, Park Ridge, IL, USA S. S. Leopold, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®, 300 S. Northwest Highway, Suite 203, Park Ridge, IL 60068, USA, Email: [email protected] A note from the Editor-In-Chief: In “Editor’s Spotlight,” one of our editors provides brief commentary on a paper we believe is especially important and worthy of general interest. Following the explanation of our choice, we present “Take 5,” in which the editor goes behind the discovery with a one-on-one interview with an author of the article featured in “Editor’s Spotlight.” We welcome reader feedback on all of our columns and articles; please send your comments to [email protected]. The author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request. The opinions expressed are those of the writers, and do not reflect the opinion or policy of CORR® or the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons®. This comment refers to the article available at: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002556.

(548) NIH Funding Trends for Men's and Women's Urologic Conditions

Abstract Introduction Existing literature reports a general trend of increasing National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for surgeon-scientists in America and shows that urology has not benefited from this trend. NIH funding for urologists continues to lag behind that of our peers in other surgical specialties. Between 2010-2019 urology departments received the second-lowest amount of NIH funding of all surgical specialties, only above plastic surgery. The literature also shows that NIH awards significantly less money to male cancer research (i.e., prostate cancer) than female cancer research (i.e., breast cancer). We sought to explore further gender-specific grant variation within NIH urologic funding by exploring dollars awarded to benign gender-specific non-cancer topics of urologic research. We hypothesized that an NIH funding disparity would exist between men’s health urologic research and research devoted to women’s health urologic issues. Objective To explore NIH funding trends for men's and women's urologic health conditions via the NIH Reporter database Methods We used the publicly available NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (NIH RePORTER) to perform our data collection. NIH RePORTER is an online search tool of the repository of NIH-funded research projects and is linked to publications, patents and clinical trials resulting from NIH funding. Data was queried for a ten-year period between 2012-2021. We used uniform search parameters including “Department Type: urology” to filter for publications from departments of urology, “Funding Mechanism: research project grant” to eliminate R&amp;D, and “Award Type: new” to capture only first-time awards in our search period. All authors were included in our search, which encompassed both trainees and non-trainees independent of Activity Code. We selected four women’s urological health issues and four men’s urological health issues to guide a keyword search. Our women’s urological health issues included overactive bladder, incontinence, and pelvic organ prolapse. In addition, we queried the NIH Spending Category of “Women’s Health”. Our men’s urological health issues include erectile dysfunction, Peyronie's disease, hypogonadism and male stress incontinence. Search terms related to these health conditions were used to query project title, projects terms and project abstracts in the NIH RePORTER. Results Results of our research findings are summarized in Table 1. Of the 12 projects identified that exclusively investigate either a men’s health condition or a women’s health condition, 7 focused on men’s health and 5 on women’s health. NIH spending on women’s health issues exceeded that for men's health conditions by $833,964, a 51% difference, even though fewer projects were identified related to women’s health conditions. Overall, fewer gender-exclusive projects were found than expected. For example, incontinence projects frequently included both male and female-bodied participants. Conclusions NIH appears to devote substantially less funding for investigating benign urologic men’s health issues than benign urologic women’s health issues. Further examination of this funding gap is warranted, and if confirmed it would be prudent to improve NIH urologic funding in general and men’s health research funding specifically. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Coloplast.

Association for Academic Surgery/Society of University Surgeons research awards are highly successful in fostering future surgeon–scientists

BackgroundThe surgeon–scientist brings a unique perspective to surgical research. The Association of Academic Surgeons and Society of University Surgeons foster the development of surgeon–scientists through foundation awards to residents and junior faculty. We sought to evaluate the academic success of surgeons who received an Association for Academic Surgery/Society of University Surgeons award. MethodsInformation was collected for individuals who received a resident or junior faculty research award from the Association for Academic Surgery or Society of University Surgeons. Google Scholar, Scopus, and the National Institutes of Health Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools: Expenditures and Results were used to assess scholarly achievements. ResultsEighty-two resident awardees were included, 31 (38%) of whom were female. Thirteen (24%) are now professors, 12 (22%) are division chiefs, and 4 (7%) are department chairs. Resident awardees have a median of 886 citations (interquartile range 237–2,111) and an H-index of 14 (interquartile range 7–23). Seven (13%) went on to receive K08/K23 awards, and 7 (13%) received R01s, with a total of about $200 million in National Institutes of Health funding (79-fold return on investment). Thirty-four junior faculty awardees were included, 10 (29%) of whom were female. Thirteen (38%) are now professors, 12 (35%) are division chiefs, and 7 (21%) are department chairs. Faculty awardees have a median of 2,617 citations (interquartile range 1,343–7,857) and an H-index of 25 (interquartile range 18–49). Four (12%) received K08 or K23 awards, and 10 (29%) received R01s, with about $139 million in National Institutes of Health funding (98-fold return on investment). ConclusionAssociation for Academic Surgery/Society of University Surgeons research awardees experience high degrees of success in academic surgery. Most resident awardees pursue fellowship training and remain in academic surgery. A high percentage of both faculty and resident awardees hold leadership positions and successfully achieve National Institutes of Health funding.

Rates of National Institutes of Health Funding for Surgeon-Scientists, 1995-2020

Surgeon-scientists are uniquely positioned to facilitate translation between the laboratory and clinical settings to drive innovation in patient care. However, surgeon-scientists face many challenges in pursuing research, such as increasing clinical demands that affect their competitiveness to apply for National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding compared with other scientists. To examine how NIH funding has been awarded to surgeon-scientists over time. This cross-sectional study used publicly available data from the NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results) database for research project grants awarded to departments of surgery between 1995 and 2020. Surgeon-scientists were defined as NIH-funded faculty holding an MD or MD-PhD degree with board certification in surgery; PhD scientists were NIH-funded faculty holding a PhD degree. Statistical analysis was performed from April 1 to August 31, 2022. National Institutes of Health funding to surgeon-scientists compared with PhD scientists, as well as NIH funding to surgeon-scientists across surgical subspecialties. Between 1995 and 2020, the number of NIH-funded investigators in surgical departments increased 1.9-fold from 968 to 1874 investigators, corresponding to a 4.0-fold increase in total funding (1995, $214 million; 2020, $861 million). Although the total amount of NIH funding to both surgeon-scientists and PhD scientists increased, the funding gap between surgeon-scientists and PhD scientists increased 2.8-fold from a $73 million difference in 1995 to a $208 million difference in 2020, favoring PhD scientists. National Institutes of Health funding to female surgeon-scientists increased significantly at a rate of 0.53% (95% CI, 0.48%-0.57%) per year from 4.8% of grants awarded to female surgeon-scientists in 1995 to 18.8% in 2020 (P < .001). However, substantial disparity remained, with female surgeon-scientists receiving less than 20% of NIH grants and funding dollars in 2020. In addition, although there was increased NIH funding to neurosurgeons and otolaryngologists, funding to urologists decreased significantly from 14.9% of all grants in 1995 to 7.5% in 2020 (annual percent change, -0.39% [95% CI, -0.47% to -0.30%]; P < .001). Despite surgical diseases making up 30% of the global disease burden, representation of surgeon-scientists among NIH investigators remains less than 2%. This study suggests that research performed by surgeon-scientists continues to be underrepresented in the NIH funding portfolio, highlighting a fundamental need to support and fund more surgeon-scientists.

Perspectives on National Institutes of Health Funding Requirements for Racial and Ethnic Diversity Among Medical Scientist Training Program Leadership

Since 1964, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has funded the Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) MD-PhD program at medical schools across the US to support training physician-scientists. Recent studies have suggested that MSTPs have consistently matriculated more students from racial and ethnic backgrounds historically underrepresented in science than MD-PhD programs without NIH funding; however, the underlying basis for the increased diversity seen in NIH-funded MSTPs is poorly understood. To investigate how administrators and faculty perceive the impact of MSTP status on MD-PhD program matriculant racial and ethnic diversity. This qualitative study used a positive deviance approach to identify 9 high-performing and 3 low-performing MSTPs based on the percentage of students underrepresented in science who matriculated into the program between 2014 and 2018. This study, a subanalysis of a larger study to understand recruitment of students underrepresented in science at MSTPs, focused on in-depth qualitative interviews, conducted from October 26, 2020, to August 31, 2022, of 69 members of MSTP leadership, including program directors, associate and assistant program directors, and program administrators. The association of NIH funding with institutional priorities, programs, and practices related to MD-PhD program matriculant racial and ethnic diversity. The study included 69 participants (mean [SD] age, 53 [10] years; 38 women [55%]; 13 African American or Black participants [19%], 6 Asian participants [9%], 12 Hispanic participants [17%], and 36 non-Hispanic White participants [52%]). A total of 51 participants (74%) were in administrative roles, and 18 (26%) were faculty involved in recruitment. Five themes emerged from the data: (1) by tying MSTP funding to diversity efforts, the NIH created a sense of urgency among MSTP leadership to bolster matriculant diversity; (2) MD-PhD program leadership leveraged the changes to MSTP grant review to secure new institutional investments to promote recruitment of students underrepresented in science; (3) MSTPs increasingly adopted holistic review to evaluate applicants to meet NIH funding requirements; (4) MSTP leadership began to systematically assess the effectiveness of their diversity initiatives and proactively identify opportunities to enhance matriculant diversity; and (5) although all MSTPs were required to respond to NIH criteria, changes made by low-performing programs generally lacked the robustness demonstrated by high-performing programs. This study suggests that NIH funding requirements may be a powerful incentive to promote diversity and positively affect representation of students underrepresented in science in the biomedical scientific workforce.

The Role of Dedicated Research Training in Promoting Academic Success in Plastic Surgery: Analysis of 949 Faculty Career Outcomes

Background: This study aimed to analyze the association between completion of research training and career success in American plastic surgery faculty to aid trainees in their decisions to perform research fellowships. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of attending academic plastic surgeons in the United States was conducted. Outcomes were compared between faculty who completed research training (research fellowship, PhD, or MPH) and those who did not. Outcomes included promotion to full professor and/or department chair, h-index, and attainment of National Institutes of Health funding. Outcomes were analyzed using chi-squared tests, t tests, and multivariable regressions. Results: A total of 949 plastic surgery faculty members were included, and of those, 185 (19.5%) completed dedicated research training, including 13.7% (n = 130) who completed a research fellowship. Surgeons who completed dedicated research training were significantly more likely to achieve full professorship (31.4% versus 24.1%, P = 0.01), obtain National Institutes of Health funding (18.4% versus 6.5%, P &lt; 0.001), and have a higher mean h-index (15.6 versus 11.6, P &lt; 0.001). Dedicated research fellowships were independently predictive of achieving full professorship (OR = 2.12, P = 0.002), increased h-index (β = 4.86, P &lt; 0.001), and attainment of National Institutes of Health funding (OR = 5.06, P = 0.01). Completion of dedicated research training did not predict an increased likelihood of becoming department chair. Conclusion: The performance of dedicated research training was predictive of improved markers of career success in plastic surgery and should be considered beneficial in both the short and long term.

National Institutes of Health Funding to Departments of Orthopaedic Surgery at U.S. Medical Schools from 2015 to 2021.

National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding of orthopaedic surgery departments has historically lagged behind that of other surgical disciplines. In this study, we present an updated analysis of NIH grants awarded to orthopaedic surgery departments at U.S. medical schools and an evaluation of the characteristics of NIH-funded principal investigators (PIs). The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER) database was queried for grants awarded to orthopaedic surgery departments in the 2015 to 2021 fiscal years. Funding totals were calculated for 4 categories: award mechanism, awarding institute, recipient institute, and PI. Trends in funding from 2015 to 2021 were determined and compared with the annual NIH budget. Funding awarded to orthopaedic surgery departments was compared with awards received by other surgical specialties in 2021. The characteristics of NIH-funded PIs and co-PIs were evaluated. Funding awarded to orthopaedic surgery departments in 2021 was compared with funding in 2014 as reported in a previous study. In 2021, 287 grants were awarded to 187 PIs at 47 orthopaedic surgery departments for a total of $104,710,841, representing 0.4% of the overall NIH budget. The top 5 departments earned $41,750,321 (39.9%) of the total NIH funding for orthopaedic surgery. From 2015 to 2021, total funding increased by 79.7% (p < 0.001), but the rate of increase was not significantly different from that of the overall annual NIH budget (p = 0.469). In 2021, grants were most commonly awarded via the R01 mechanism (70.0% of total funding), with a median annual award of $397,144 (interquartile range [IQR], $335,017 to $491,248). The majority of grants (70.0%) supported basic science research, followed by translational (12.2%), clinical (9.4%), and educational (8.4%) research. NIH funding did not vary by the gender of the PI (p = 0.505), and the proportion of female PIs was significantly greater in 2021 than in 2014 (33.9% versus 20.5%, p = 0.009). Compared with other surgical departments, orthopaedic surgery departments ranked second-lowest in terms of the total NIH funding received in 2021. NIH funding to orthopaedic surgery departments continues to be limited and lags behind that of other surgical subspecialties, which may create challenges in addressing the rising burden of musculoskeletal disease in the U.S. These findings highlight the importance of efforts to identify barriers to grant procurement in orthopaedic surgery.

National Institutes of Health grant funding for cerebrovascular diseases

BackgroundFederal research funding is highly sought after but may be challenging to attain. A clear understanding of funding for specific diseases, such as cerebrovascular disorders, might help researchers regarding which...

Dispersion of National Institute of Health Funding to Departments of Surgery Is Contracting

IntroductionNIH funding to departments of surgery reported as benchmark Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research (BRIMR) rankings are unclear. MethodsWe analyzed inflation-adjusted BRIMR-reported NIH funding to departments of surgery and medicine between 2011 and 2021. ResultsNIH funding to departments of surgery and medicine both increased 40% from 2011 to 2021 ($325 million to $454 million; $3.8 billion to $5.3 billion, P < 0.001 for both). The number of BRIMR-ranked departments of surgery decreased 14% during this period while departments of medicine increased 5% (88 to 76 versus 111 to 116; P < 0.001). There was a greater increase in the total number of medicine PIs versus surgery PIs during this period (4377 to 5224 versus 557 to 649; P < 0.001). These trends translated to further concentration of NIH-funded PIs in medicine versus surgery departments (45 PIs/program versus 8.5 PIs/program; P < 0.001). NIH funding and PIs/program in 2021 were respectively 32 and 20 times greater for the top versus lowest 15 BRIMR-ranked surgery departments ($244 million versus $7.5 million [P < 0.01]; 20.5 versus 1.3 [P < 0.001]). Twelve (80%) of the top 15 surgery departments maintained this ranking over the 10-year study period. ConclusionsAlthough NIH funding to departments of surgery and medicine is growing at a similar rate, departments of medicine and top-funded surgery departments have greater funding and concentration of PIs/program versus surgery departments overall and lowest-funded surgery departments. Strategies used by top-performing departments to obtain and maintain funding may assist less well-funded departments in obtaining extramural research funding, thus broadening the access of surgeon-scientists to perform NIH-supported research.

Gender Disparity in National Institutes of Health Funding Among Surgeon-Scientists From 1995 to 2020

Surgical diseases account for approximately 30% of the global burden of disease. Gender diversity in biomedical research is critical to generate innovative patient-centered research in surgery. To examine the distribution of biomedical research funding by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) among women and men surgeon-scientists during a 25-year period. This cross-sectional study used publicly available data from the NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools: Expenditures and Results) database for research project grants awarded to women and men surgeon-scientists who were principal investigators between 1995 and 2020. Data were retrieved between January 20 and March 20, 2022. The representation of women surgeon-scientists among academic surgeons was compared with the representation of men surgeon-scientists over time. Distribution of NIH funding to women and men surgeon-scientists was examined via 2 metrics: holding a large-dollar (ie, R01-equivalent) grant and being a super principal investigator (SPI) with $750 000 or more in total annual research funding. Statistical analysis was performed between April 1 and August 31, 2022. Between 1995 and 2020, 2078 principal investigator surgeons received funding from the NIH. The proportion of women academic surgeons who were surgeon-scientists remained unchanged during this same period (1995, 14 of 792 [1.8%] vs 2020, 92 of 3834 [2.4%]; P = .10). Compared with their men counterparts, women surgeon-scientists obtained their first NIH grant earlier in their career (mean [SD] years after first faculty appointment, 8.8 [6.2] vs 10.8 [7.9] years; P < .001) and were as likely to obtain large-dollar grants (aRR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.95-1.03]) during the period 2016 to 2020. Despite this success, women surgeon-scientists remained significantly underrepresented among SPIs and were 25% less likely to be an SPI (aRR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.60-0.95] during the period 2016 to 2020). The findings of this cross-sectional study of NIH-funded surgeons suggest that women surgeons remained underrepresented among surgeon-scientists over a 25-year period despite early career success in receiving NIH funding. This is concerning and warrants further investigation to increase the distribution of NIH funding among women surgeon-scientists.

The Medical Student Race to Research: Who Presents More at National Plastic Surgery Conferences?

presentations increase research output and facilitate networking for medical students applying to plastic surgery. We aim to determine predictors of increased medical student presentation at national plastic surgery conferences, identifying disparities in access to research opportunities. Abstracts presented at the 2 most recent meetings of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, American Association of Plastic Surgeons, and Plastic Surgery Research Council were extracted from online archives. Presenters without MDs or other professional credentials were classified as medical students. Presenter gender, medical school ranking, plastic surgery division/department, National Institutes of Health funding, number of total and first-author publications, H-index, and research fellowship completion status were recorded. Students with 3 or more (>75th percentile) presentations were compared with those with less by χ2 tests. Univariate and multivariable regressions identified factors associated with 3 or more presentations. Of 1576 abstracts, 549 (34.8%) were presented by 314 students. The gender distribution was 46.5% male and 53.5% female. Most were from the Northeast (36.9%), 35% came from top 20 medical schools, and 85% attended schools with home plastic surgery programs. While 61.8% presented once, 14.6% presented 3 or more times. Those who previously presented, completed research fellowships or had more publications or higher H-indices were likely to present more ( P ≤ 0.007). On multivariable-adjusted analysis, completing research fellowships (odds ratio [OR], 2.34-2.52; P = 0.028-0.045), affiliation with institutions having higher National Institutes of Health funding (OR, 3.47-3.73; P = 0.004-0.006), or having more total number of publications (OR, 3.81; P = 0.018) or first-author publications (OR, 3.84; P = 0.008) was associated with 3 or more presentations. Presenter gender, geographic region, medical school ranking, home program status, and H-indices were not significant predictors on multivariable analysis. There are several potential inequities in access to research opportunities for medical students, disadvantaging those with less well-funded plastic surgery programs and existing research experience. Improving the equitability of these opportunities is crucial for limiting bias in trainee recruitment and diversifying representation in the field.

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

264 Background: Traditionally, women are under-represented in academic fields and thus less likely to receive grants and funds. Here we assessed the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding trend in allocation of R401 grants in Genito-urinary oncology (GU) stratified by gender. Methods: The data were retrieved from the NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditure) using GU-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 September 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 873 NIH-funded R01 grants amounting to $388.5 million were awarded for GU research. Women (n= 206; 23.6% [95% CI: 20.8%-26.4%]) received fewer grants than men (n= 667; 76.4% [95% CI: 73.6%-79.2%]). Trending from 2018 to 2021, there was no significant difference in the number of grants awarded among both men (173 to 181, p=0.78) and women (50 to 53, p=0.92) within their groups. Similarly, there was no significant change in the grant amount (in millions) awarded among men (74.2 to 78.7, p=0.47) and women (23.6 to 22.4, p=0.30). Prostate cancer accounted for the greatest proportion of grants (n=689; 78.9% [95% CI: 76.2%-81.6%]), amounting to 304.4 million in 4 years. Of the 269 co-Principal Investigator (PIs), 240 (89.2% [95% CI: 85.5%-92.9%]) were men and 29 (10.8% [95% CI: 7.1%-14.5%]) were women. Male PIs compared to female PIs had a higher no. of publications (135 vs 106, p&lt;0.01). Funding amount was significantly associated with the number of publications (β=0.05; p&lt;0.01), seniority (β=0.10; p=0.015), institution (p&lt;0.01) and degrees (p=0.03). However, there was no significant association with gender (β=0.05; p=0.17). Conclusions: Our analysis shows continued gender disparity in R01 awards as only 1 in 5 grants were awarded to women during the fiscal years of 2018-2021. Thus, concerted efforts are required to bridge this gap and promote gender equity. [Table: see text]

Impact of National Institutes of Health and Food and Drug Administration Tobacco Research Funding: A Bibliometrics Analyses.

Conduct bibliometric analyses documenting the output of National Institutes of Health (NIH) tobacco-related and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tobacco regulatory science (FDA-TRS) research portfolios. PubMed identifiers for publications between 2015 and 2020 citing tobacco funding by NIH and/or FDA were imported into NIH iCite generating measures of productivity and influence, including number of citations, journal, relative citation ratios (RCR), and comparison of research influence across Web of Science (WoS) disciplines. Coauthorship and measures of centrality among and between NIH and FDA-supported investigators gauged collaboration. Between FY 2015 and 2020, 8160 publications cited funding from NIH tobacco-related grants, 1776 cited FDA-TRS grants and 496 cited Common funding (ie, both NIH and FDA-TRS funding). The proportion of publications citing NIH grants declined while those citing FDA-TRS or Common funding rose significantly. Publications citing Common funding showed the highest influence (mean RCR = 2.52). Publications citing FDA-TRS funding displayed higher median RCRs than publications citing NIH funding in most WoS categories. Higher translational progress was estimated over time for FDA-TRS and Common publications compared to NIH publications. Authors citing Common funding scored highest across all collaboration measures. This study demonstrates the high bibliometric output of tobacco research overall. The rise in publications citing FDA-TRS and Common likely reflects increased funding for TRS research. Higher RCRs across WoS subject categories and trends towards human translation among FDA-TRS and Common publications indicate focus on research to inform regulation. This analysis suggests that FDA support for TRS has expanded the field of tobacco control resulting in sustained productivity, influence, and collaboration. This paper is the first effort to better describe the impact of tobacco research resulting from the addition of FDA funding for TRS in the past decade. The analysis provides impetus for further investigation into the publication topics and their focus which would offer insight into the specific evidence generated on tobacco control and regulation.

Show me the data! Data sharing practices demonstrated in published research at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School

Objective: In the interest of making data findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will institute a new Data Management and Sharing Policy in January 2023. This policy will require researchers applying for NIH funding to submit a Data Management and Sharing Plan. As 63% of grant dollars received by University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (UMass Chan) researchers comes from the NIH, we explored whether UMass Chan researchers are currently sharing data associated with their published research and how they shared their data.&amp;nbsp;Methods: PubMed was searched for articles published in 2019 with a UMass Chan researcher as either the first or last author. These articles were examined for evidence of original or reused data, the type of data, whether the article stated that data was available, and where and how to find that data.&amp;nbsp;Results: Of the 361 articles with original data, 26% had a data availability statement. However, most articles (71%) did not mention where data could be accessed. The data storage location of the estimated 1551 original datasets was similarly not mentioned for 74% the datasets with the next largest category being available upon request (8.6%). Genomic data repositories such as the Gene Expression Omnibus were among the top repositories used by authors. Similar areas for improvement were noted for permanent identifier use (46% had a permanent identifier), using non-proprietary file formats (most popular format was Excel), and citing reused data. Authors who published open access were more likely to share their data.&amp;nbsp;Conclusions: While some researchers at UMass Chan have embraced data sharing, particularly genomic data sharing, we expect there will be more data shared in the coming years with the implementation of the new NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy.

The Matthew effect, research productivity, and the dynamic allocation of NIH grants

AbstractFunding is important for research. However, research funding may suffer from the Matthew effect: the more researchers already have, the more they will be given. I develop an empirical framework to study how the National Institutes of Health (NIH) could allocate funding in a dynamically optimal manner by balancing funds between young and veteran principal investigators (PIs). I find that the discount factor that rationalizes NIH's funding behavior is about 0.75, implying it may underfund young PIs. Moreover, a temporary funding cut would have long‐lasting effects on overall research output through its adverse impact on investment in young PIs.

Advice for Early Career Clinical Stroke Researchers Applying for National Institutes of Health Funding.

Advice for Early Career Clinical Stroke Researchers Applying for National Institutes of Health Funding.

Fewer Than One in 20 Current Academic Orthopaedic Surgeons Have Obtained National Institutes of Health Funding.

National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding is a key driver of orthopaedic research, but it has become increasingly difficult to obtain in recent years. An understanding of the types of grants that are commonly funded, how productive they are, and the factors associated with obtaining funding may help orthopaedic surgeons better understand how to earn grants. In this study, we sought to determine (1) the proportion of current academic orthopaedic surgeons who have obtained NIH grant funding, (2) the productivity of these grants by calculating grant productivity metrics, and (3) the factors (such as gender, subspecialty, and additional degrees) that are associated with obtaining grant funding. Current academic orthopaedic surgeons at the top 140 NIH-funded institutions were identified via faculty webpages; 3829 surgeons were identified. Demographic information including gender (men constituted 88% of the group [3364 of 3829]), academic rank (full professors constituted 22% [856 of 3829]), additional degrees (those with MD-PhD degrees constituted 3% [121 of 3829]), leadership positions, and orthopaedic subspecialty was collected. Funding histories from 1985 through 2021 were collected using the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results. Grant type, funding, publications, and citations of each article were collected. A previously used grant impact metric (total citations per USD 0.1 million) was calculated to assess grant productivity. Multivariable binomial logistic regression was used to evaluate factors associated with obtaining funding. Four percent (150 of 3829) of academic orthopaedic surgeons obtained USD 338.3 million in funding across 301 grants, resulting in 2887 publications over the entire study period. The R01 was the most commonly awarded grant in terms of the total number awarded, at 36% (108 of 301), as well as by funding, publications, and citations, although other grant types including T32, F32, R03, R13, and R21 had higher mean grant impact metrics. There was no difference between men and women in the by-gender percentage of academic orthopaedic surgeons who obtained funding (4% [135 of 3229] versus 3% [15 of 450]; odds ratio 0.9 [95% confidence interval 0.5 to 1.7]; p = 0.80). A department having a single funded PhD researcher may be associated with surgeon-scientists obtaining grant funding, but with the numbers available, we could not demonstrate this was the case (OR 1.4 [95% CI 0.9 to 2.2]; p = 0.12). Fewer than one in 20 academic orthopaedic surgeons have received NIH funding. R01s are the most commonly awarded grant, although others demonstrate increased productivity metrics. Future studies should investigate the role of co-principal investigators on productivity and the role of different funding sources. Individuals should pursue both R01 and non-R01 grants, and departments should consider cultivating relationships with funded PhDs. The specific research infrastructure and departmental policies of the most productive institutions and grants should be surveyed and emulated.

NIH Funding Among Vascular Surgeons Is Rare and Aligns Poorly With Society for Vascular Surgery Priorities

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is an essential source of funding for vascular surgeon-scientists. NIH funding is frequently used to benchmark institutional and individual research productivity, help determine eligibility for academic promotion, and as a measure of scientific quality. We sought to determine NIH-funded vascular surgeon characteristics along with amounts, types, and content areas of NIH funding. In addition, we also sought to determine whether funded grants addressed recent Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) research priorities.