National Institutes Of Health Funding Research Articles

644: Gender differences in academic rank and nih funding among academic maternal-fetal medicine physicians in the United States

To evaluate if there are gender differences in academic rank and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding among academic Maternal-Fetal medicine (MFM) physicians. This was a cross-sectional study of Board certified academic MFM physicians. Physicians were identified in July 2017 from the websites of academic institutions in the U.S. with MFM fellowship programs. Academic rank and NIH funding were compared by gender. Data on potential confounders were collected including years since Board certification, region of practice, additional degrees (PhD or Masters degree), number of publications, and h-index (a metric of scholarly productivity that combines the number of publications with the number of times the publications have been cited). Categorical variables were compared with the Chi-square test of independence, nonparametric continuous variables were compared using Kruskal-Wallis or Wilcoxon rank-sum as appropriate, and multivariate logistic regression was used to generate adjusted odds ratios. We identified 659 MFM physicians (312 (47.3%) male and 347 (52.7%) female) at 72 institutions. There were 246 (37.3%) full, 163 (24.7%) associate, and 250 (37.9%) assistant professors. Among the 154 (23.4%) MFM physicians with NIH funding, 89 (57.8%) were male and 65 (42.2%) were female (p=0.003). Adjusting for years since Board certification, NIH funding, region of practice, additional degrees, number of publications, and h-index, women were 51% less likely to be full professor versus male MFM physicians [aOR 0.49 (95% CI 0.29-0.84) p=0.009]. Adjusting for academic rank, years since Board certification, h-index, region of practice, additional degrees, and number of publications, there was no difference in NIH funding between male and female MFM physicians [aOR 1.28 (95% CI 0.8-2.3) p= 0.30]. When compared to male academic MFM physicians, female academic MFM physicians were equally likely to receive NIH funding yet 51% less likely to reach the rank of professor. Further efforts to identify and ameliorate disparities in academic promotion are needed in our specialty.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT)

Increased Academic Productivity of Orthopaedic Surgery Residents Following 2011 Duty Hour Reform

In 2003 and again in 2011, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) mandated increasingly stringent resident duty hour restrictions. With less time required at the hospital, residents theoretically have more time for other academic activities, such as research. Our study seeks to examine whether the number of research publications by orthopaedic residents increased following implementation of the 2011 ACGME duty hour restrictions. Pubmed was queried using publicly available alumni lists from programs across the United States. The years 2008 to 2011 were included to assess pre-2011 productivity. The years 2012 to 2015 were included in the post 2011 group. Paired t tests were used to assess differences between groups. Statistical significance was set to p < 0.05 a priori. A total of 10 orthopedic surgery residency programs across the United States. The study group was composed of 5 of the 2015 top 20 National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded programs and 5 programs without NIH funding. When corrected for number of residents per year, there were 0.290 publications per resident/year from 2008 to 2011 increasing to 0.528 publications per resident/year from 2012 to 2015 following implementation of the 2011 work hour restrictions (p = 0.033). When corrected for number of residents per year, there remained no difference in publications per resident from 2008 to 2011 (p = 0.81) or from 2012 to 2015 (p = 0.10) between NIH and non-NIH funded programs. There has been little data to support the theory that resident work hour restrictions have improved education or patient care in any meaningful way. In our study, there was a statistically significant increase in publications after 2011; however, the number of publications between NIH funded and non-NIH funded programs did not differ. Our study is the first to demonstrate that with increasing duty hour restrictions, orthopaedic surgery residents may be using more of their free time to conduct research.

Trends and Predictors of National Institutes of Health Funding to Plastic Surgery Residency Programs.

Recent studies have demonstrated low levels of National Institutes of Health funding for surgical research. The authors compared the funding in plastic surgery with the funding for other surgical specialties. A query of National Institutes of Health grants awarded to departments of surgical specialties was performed using the National Institutes of Health RePORTER database (2008 to 2016). Trends in funding were compared by specialty and adjusted for the number of active physicians in each specialty. Plastic surgery residency program characteristics were correlated with funding procurement. Eight hundred eighty-nine faculty at 94 plastic surgery residency programs were queried. Forty-eight investigators (5.4 percent) at 23 programs (24.4 percent) had National Institutes of Health funding. From 2008 to 2016, a total of $84,142,138 was awarded through 81 grants. Funding supported translational (44.6 percent), clinical (26.4 percent), basic science (27.2 percent), and educational (1.7 percent) research. In 2016, plastic surgery received the least amount of National Institutes of Health funding per active physician ($1,530) relative to orthopedic surgery ($3124), obstetrics and gynecology ($3885), urology ($5943), otolaryngology ($9999), general surgery ($11,649), ophthalmology ($11,933), and neurologic surgery ($20,874). Plastic surgery residency program characteristics associated with National Institutes of Health funding were high ranking and had more than 10 clinical faculty (p < 0.05). Plastic surgery receives the least National Institutes of Health funding among the surgical specialties. Departments and divisions of plastic surgery should support investigators applying for research grants to increase future National Institutes of Health funding.

Allergen immunotherapy: exploring areas for further inquiry.

Allergy-related illness impacts millions of individuals worldwide. Our objectives were to characterize current trends of clinical trials research relating to allergen immunotherapy and to describe the landscape of allergen immunotherapy in National Institutes of Health (NIH)-supported research inquiry. On ClinicalTrials.gov, the following terms were searched: allergen immunotherapy OR allergy immunotherapy. Variables, including completion status, dates, design, study population, funder, location, and allergen were recorded. The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORTER) system was also used to gather relevant variables. A total of 372 clinical trials met inclusion criteria. The proportion of industry-funded clinical trials has declined over 15 years. There has been a slow decline in pollen allergy immunotherapy research, with an increase in both food and animal allergy immunotherapy research. Otolaryngologists comprised only 6.4% of clinical trials principal investigators (PIs). There was a total adjusted NIH funding of $74,986,125 for the 118 total funding years. Despite an immense interest in allergen immunotherapy, this analysis demonstrates that otolaryngologists represented a small proportion of PIs leading associated clinical trials and basic science inquiry. The proportion of trials with industry sponsorship has declined considerably in recent decades. These trends could help direct future resource allocation for allergen immunotherapy.

Trends in sinusitis research: a systematic review of extramural funding.

Innovation represents a core value of the American Rhinologic Society (ARS), with multiple efforts to promote research in the advancement rhinologic care. We therefore sought to identify trends in extramural sinusitis funding and underutilized sources of support to facilitate future efforts. A systematic review of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Portfolio Online Tools (RePORTER) database (fiscal year 1993 to 2017) was completed with the search strategy: ("chronic sinusitis" OR rhinosinusitis). All identified studies were accepted for review, with comparison to ARS membership rolls to identify studies supported by ARS investigators. Foundation awards were surveyed to identify and characterize additional sources of support. The systematic review identified 958 projects receiving NIH funding, of which 120 remain active. The percentage of sinusitis-related awards and total funding relative to all NIH awards increased over the past 10 years (2006 to 2016) from 0.06% (8 / 9128) and 0.09% ($2,151,152 / $3,358,338,602) to 0.87% (86 / 9540) and 0.90% ($37,201,095 / $4,300,145,614). Among active studies, 9 investigators maintain membership in the ARS and serve as principal investigator or project leader in 12 (10%) studies. ARS investigators received the greatest number of awards from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disrders (n = 8,66.7%), while only receiving 2.2% of awarded funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ($607,500/$26,873,022), the largest source of awards for sinusitis research. Support for sinusitis research is significantly growing, with the largest source of active funding not being fully utilized by members of the ARS. Further efforts to promote funding priorities among extramural sources is necessary to facilitate increased funding for ARS member initiatives.

Is Formal Research Training Associated With Academic Success in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery?

Pursuing promotion in academic rank and seeking funded research opportunities are core elements of academic practice. Our purpose was to assess whether formal research training influences academic rank or National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding among full-time academic oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMSs). We performed a cross-sectional study of full-time academic OMSs in the United States. The primary predictor variable was completion of formal research training, defined as a research fellowship or advanced non-clinical doctoral research degree (PhD, DMSc, DPH, DPhil, ScD). The outcomes measures were current academic rank and successful acquisition of NIH funding (yes vs no). Other study variables included MD degree, clinical fellowship training, years since training completion, and Hirsch index (H-index), a measure of academic productivity. We computed the descriptive, bivariate, and multiple regression models and set P≤.05 as significant. A total of 299 full-time academic OMSs were included in the study sample. Of the 299 OMSs, 41 (13.7%) had had formal research training. Surgeons with formal research training had a greater mean interval since completion of training (P = 0.01) and had a greater mean H-index (P = 0.02). Formal research training was not associated with academic rank (P=.10) but was associated with an increased likelihood of receiving NIH funding (P<.001). In a multiple logistic regression model, after adjusting for years since completing training and H-index, formal research training was associated with an increased likelihood of obtaining NIH funding (odds ratio, 3.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.15 to 9.00; P=.03). Among academic OMSs, those with formal research training had greater success with obtaining NIH funding. However, formal research training did not appear to influence an OMS's current academic rank.

Sex Differences in Radiologist Salary in U.S. Public Medical Schools.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate salary differences between male and female academic radiologists at U.S. medical schools. Laws in several U.S. states mandate public release of government records, including salary information of state employees. From online salary data published by 12 states, we extracted the salaries of all academic radiologists at 24 public medical schools during 2011-2013 (n = 573 radiologists). In this institutional review board-approved cross-sectional study, we linked these data to a physician database with information on physician sex, age, faculty rank, years since residency, clinical trial involvement, National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, scientific publications, and clinical volume measured by 2013 Medicare payments. Sex difference in salary, the primary outcome, was estimated using a multilevel logistic regression adjusting for these factors. Among 573 academic radiologists, 171 (29.8%) were women. Female radiologists were younger (48.5 vs 51.6 years, p = 0.001) and more likely to be assistant professors (50.9% [87/171] vs 40.8% [164/402], p = 0.026). Salaries between men and women were similar in unadjusted analyses ($290,660 vs $289,797; absolute difference, $863; 95% CI, -$18,363 to $20,090), and remained so after adjusting for age, faculty rank, years since residency, clinical trial involvement, publications, total Medicare payments, NIH funding, and graduation from a highly ranked medical school. Among academic radiologists employed at 24 U.S. public medical schools, male and female radiologists had similar annual salaries both before and after adjusting for several variables known to influence salary among academic physicians.

Abstract: Which Funding Sources are the Greatest Contributors to Scholastic Productivity for Academic Plastic Surgeons?

INTRODUCTION: Scholastic productivity has previously been shown to be positively associated with National Institute of Health (NIH) grants and industry funding. 1–3 This study examines whether society, industry or federal funding contributes towards academic productivity as measured by scholastic output of academic plastic surgeons. METHODS: Institution websites were used to acquire academic attributes of full-time academic plastic surgeons. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payment database, NIH reporter, the Plastic Surgery Foundation (PSF), and American Association of Plastic Surgeons (AAPS) websites were accessed for funding and endowment details. Bibliometric data of each surgeon were then collected via Scopus to ascertain strengths of association with each source. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to identify significant contributors to high scholastic output. RESULTS: We identified 935 academic plastic surgeons with 94 (10.1%), 24 (2.6%), 724 (77.4%), and 62 (6.6%) receiving funding from PSF, AAPS, industry, and NIH respectively. There were positive correlations in receiving NIH, PSF, and/or AAPS funding (p<0.001), while industry funding was found to negatively associate with PSF (r=-0.75, p=0.022) grants. The NIH R award was consistently found to be the most predictive of academic output across bibliometrics, followed by the AAPS academic scholarship award. Conventional measures of academic seniority remained predictive across all measures used. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates for the first time interactions between industry, federal and association funding. The NIH R award was the strongest determinant of high scholastic productivity. Recognition through AAPS academic scholarships appeared to associate with subsequent success in NIH funding. Reference Citations: 1. Gast KM, Kuzon WM, Jr., Adelman EE, Waljee JF. Influence of training institution on academic affiliation and productivity among plastic surgery faculty in the United States. Plast Reconstr Surg. Sep 2014;134(3):570–578. 2. Lopez J, Susarla SM, Swanson EW, Calotta N, Lifchez SD. The Association of the H-Index and Academic Rank Among Full-Time Academic Hand Surgeons Affiliated With Fellowship Programs. J Hand Surg Am. Jul 2015;40(7):1434–1441. 3. Ruan QZ, Ricci JA, Silvestre J, Ho OA, Lee BT. Academic productivity of faculty associated with microsurgery fellowships. Microsurgery. Dec 26 2016.

(Invited) The Biotic/Abiotic Interface between Neuromodulation Electrodes and the Peripheral Nervous System

This introductory talk will provide background on the anatomy and biological environment of the peripheral nervous system and spinal cord. Building from this foundation, a variety of approaches to build electrical interfaces capable of interacting with tissue will be reviewed. These interfaces typically fall into four major categories: metal alloys, conductive inorganic non-metals, conductive polymers, and capacitive transduction through a dielectric. The requirements for recording neuronal activity are distinct from those for stimulating activity due to the challenges of working in an ionic environment. Information in the nervous system is represented not by the presence of electrons and holes, but by the physical transport of elemental ions within and between cells. By understanding the limitations, constraints, and tradeoffs of current approaches in context of the biological environment, it is possible to envision new opportunities to increase the reliability, safety, and functionality of tissue interfaces. The remainder of the talk will provide insight into the National Institutes of Health (NIH), its various funding opportunities, and how grant applications are evaluated and funded. Although all federal funding agencies serve the same fundamental purpose, the mission of each is substantially different, which directly shapes its operations and processes. After a “big picture” of NIH funding is presented, a deep dive will be provided on the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering and the Office of Strategic Coordination’s Common Fund. Several programs within those organizations will be described, including: Advanced Biomaterials, Implantable Medical Devices, and Stimulating Peripheral Activity to Relieve Conditions (SPARC). While the concept of peer review is familiar to all, the NIH implementation of this process has unique nuances that will be described. Finally, suggestions will be provided for investigators on how to best engage with the NIH in pursuit of addressing unmet medical needs.

Documents detail gender-related tensions at Salk.

In-house reports compiled at the storied Salk Institute for Biological Studies show that senior women run the smallest labs and that efforts to recruit, retain, and advance women have been strikingly slow in the 21st century. The leaked 2003 and 2016 documents, obtained by Science, buttress claims made by three senior female professors who last month sued the independent institute in San Diego, California, alleging gender discrimination. However, Salk President Elizabeth Blackburn and other administrators argue vehemently that the 2016 report, which shows senior women pulling in more than twice as much National Institutes of Health funding as their tenured male colleagues, is inaccurate and represents only the views of its authors, who were led by plaintiff Beverly Emerson.

The Relationship Between OREF Grants and Future NIH Funding Success.

The Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation (OREF) is the leading specialty-specific nongovernmental organization providing orthopaedic funding in the United States. As extramural research funding has become increasingly difficult to acquire, one mission of the OREF is to support investigators to generate data needed to secure larger extramural funding from agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The objectives of this study were to evaluate the rate of translating OREF faculty-level grants into subsequent NIH funding and to determine if there are identifiable factors that increase the rate of converting an OREF grant into NIH funding. This is a retrospective review of OREF grants awarded to full-time faculty orthopaedic surgeons between 1994 and 2014. Grants were analyzed on the basis of award type and were categorized as basic science, clinical, or epidemiological. Sex, individual scholarly productivity, and publication experience were evaluated. All awardees were assessed for subsequent NIH funding using the NIH RePORTER web site. One hundred and twenty-six faculty-level OREF grants were awarded to 121 individuals. Twenty-seven OREF grant awardees (22%) received NIH funding at a mean of 6.3 years after OREF funding. Nineteen (46%) of 41 Career Development Grant winners later received NIH funding compared with 10 (12%) of 85 other award winners. OREF grants for basic science projects were awarded more often (58%) and were more than 4 times as likely to result in NIH funding than non-basic science projects (odds ratio, 4.70 [95% confidence interval, 1.66 to 13.33]; p = 0.0036). Faculty who later received NIH funding had higher scholarly productivity and publication experience (p < 0.05). The OREF grant awardee conversion rate of 22% and, particularly, the 46% for Career Development Grant winners compares favorably with the overall NIH funding success rate (18% in 2014). Faculty-level OREF grants appear to achieve their purpose of identifying and supporting researchers who aim to secure subsequent federal funding. The goal of this study is to examine how successful faculty who have obtained OREF grants have been in securing NIH funding later in their careers. Although subsequent accrual of NIH funding is not the only goal of OREF funding, it can be used as an important benchmark to assess the development of orthopaedic clinician-scientists.

Does the Organization of Plastic Surgery Units into Independent Departments Affect Academic Productivity?

There is an increased push for plastic surgery units in the United States to become independent departments administered autonomously rather than as divisions of a multispecialty surgery department. The purpose of this research was to determine whether there are any quantifiable differences in the academic performance of departments versus divisions. Using a list of the plastic surgery units affiliated with the American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeons, unit Web sites were queried for departmental status and to obtain a list of affiliated faculty. Academic productivity was then quantified using the SCOPUS database. National Institutes of Health funding was determined through the Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools database. Plastic surgery departments were comparable to divisions in academic productivity, evidenced by a similar number of publications per faculty (38.9 versus 38.7; p = 0.94), number of citations per faculty (692 versus 761; p = 0.64), H-indices (9.9 versus 9.9; p = 0.99), and National Institutes of Health grants (3.25 versus 2.84; p = 0.80), including RO1 grants (1.33 versus 0.84; p = 0.53). There was a trend for departments to have a more equitable male-to-female ratio (2.8 versus 4.1; p = 0.06), and departments trained a greater number of integrated plastic surgery residents (9.0 versus 5.28; p = 0.03). This study demonstrates that the academic performance of independent plastic surgery departments is generally similar to divisions, but with nuanced distinctions.

NIH Funding within Otolaryngology: 2005‐2014

Objective Analyze grants awarded between 2005 and 2014 to otolaryngology departments that appear in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) RePORTER database, summarize characteristics of grant recipients associated with otolaryngology departments as listed in the RePORTER between 2005 and 2014, and identify trends in otolaryngology NIH funding between 2005 and 2014 by topic. Study Design Case series. Setting NIH database inquiry. Subjects Grant recipients. Methods The RePORTER was queried for all grants awarded to otolaryngology departments between 2005 and 2014. All grants classified as new, renewal, or revision were included while duplicates were excluded. Results In total, 475 grants to 51 institutions were categorized by topic and subtopic. Internet searches were conducted for characteristics of 352 principal investigators. Sixty-seven percent of awardees had a PhD, 22% had an MD, and 11% had an MD/PhD. Sex ratios varied by degrees held. Although 31% of all grant recipients were women, this ratio was not seen when recipients were classified by degree type, with 78% of women holding a PhD compared with 55% of men ( P = .0013). Of the award types, 39% were R01s, 15% were R21s, and 10% were R03s. The top 3 represented topics were otology/neurotology (52%), audiology (25%), and head and neck surgery (14%). The mean annual award amount, after adjusting for inflation to 2014 dollars, was $226,495.76, with 72.8% awarded by the National Institute of Deafness and Communication Disorders. Twenty percent of awardees received multiple grants. Conclusion NIH funding in otolaryngology tends to be awarded to those with PhDs studying the hearing sciences, with 1 in 5 having multiple awards. As in other areas of NIH funding, women are underrepresented overall.

Inclusion of sex and gender in biomedical research: survey of clinical research proposed at the University of Pennsylvania

BackgroundThe 2015 National Institutes of Health (NIH) policy that sex be considered as a biological variable (SABV) is now a critical part of the peer-review process for NIH funding as well as publication in several high-impact scientific journals. We sought to determine the degree to which biomedical researchers at the University of Pennsylvania already consider SABV or gender in their research.MethodsWe reviewed 240 research protocols approved by the University of Pennsylvania Investigational Review Board (IRB) consecutively submitted between January and July 2016. Each protocol was searched for the terms sex, gender, male, female, man, and woman and justifications related to the population under study. A PubMed search was conducted to determine the current state of knowledge regarding potential sex and/or gender differences with respect to protocol topic. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics.ResultsOf the 165 (68.8%) protocols that included one of the search terms, only 24 (14.5%) provided justification for the choice of the sex/gender of the population studied. Sixty-three percent (n = 151) of the protocols focused on topics for which the extant literature supports at least a moderate degree of sex/gender differences in some aspect of the disorder/condition being studied. Of these, only three (2.0%) indicated that the investigator would consider sex or gender impact on their primary outcomes.ConclusionsReview of a subset of IRB protocols submitted at a major research institution suggests that very few investigators are considering sex or gender as important variables in their clinical research at the stage of protocol development. IRBs are in an excellent position to encourage investigators to consider SABV and gender in order to enhance the rigor of research design, maximize the importance of the resulting knowledge, and ensure that subject selection is equitable. These findings serve as the basis for developing an intervention at the level of IRB protocol development and submission that will promote consideration of SABV and/or gender, factors with critical import to patient safety and efficacy of interventions.

Congress Rejects White House Proposal to Cut NIH Funding

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Government NewsFull AccessCongress Rejects White House Proposal to Cut NIH FundingHarriet EdlesonHarriet EdlesonSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:26 May 2017https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.pn.2017.6a7AbstractAgencies that support mental health research and programs are given a $2 billion boost.When the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate voted in favor of passing a $1.1 trillion federal spending package last month, it signaled significant good news for medicine in general and mental health and psychiatry in particular.NIHIn a rejection of the White House proposal to cut $1.2 billion from the budget of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Congress pushed through a bipartisan deal that increased funding for NIH. Passage of the legislation, which was signed by President Trump on May 5, averted a government shutdown and provides funding through September, the end of Fiscal 2017.Overall, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was appropriated $2.8 billion more than in Fiscal 2016, mostly due to the $2 billion increase for NIH. With that increase, the total appropriated to NIH through September is $34 billion, a 6.2 percent increase. The mental health institutes under NIH are also winners in the budget: the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) all received funding increases (see table).Among the research areas benefiting from passage of the package are Alzheimer’s disease, the Precision Medicine Initiative, and the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative. They received increases of, respectively, $400 million, $120 million, and $110 million. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration was given a total budget of $3.6 billion, including $650 million over Fiscal 2016 to address the opioid crisis. This represents an increase of $150 million for prevention and treatment programs for opioid and heroin use disorders, as well as $500 million in funding authorized by the 21st Century Cures Act. The funding level for the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant has been maintained at $1.8 billion, while the Mental Health Block Grant funding was increased from $533 million to $563 million. “The federal government and the Congress play a vital role in advancing research into the causes of, and new treatments for, mental health and substance use disorders,” said CEO and Medical Director Saul Levin, M.D., M.P.A. “The increased funding that Congress has appropriated this year gives us renewed hope that people with mental illness and substance use disorders will one day benefit from the growing understanding of mental disorders and new, personalized health and treatment options. We sincerely appreciate Congress considering our requests for additional funding for those governmental entities helping those with mental illness and substance use disorders get the best treatment and care through research.”Ariel Gonzalez, APA’s chief of government affairs, agreed. “We were pleased to see that the budget for HHS has been increased $2.8 billion above the Fiscal 2016 level. We will continue to advocate for additional funding to address the needs of those impacted by mental health issues and those in need of substance use disorders treatment.” ■ ISSUES NewArchived

Patterns of Recent National Institutes of Health (NIH) Funding to Diagnostic Radiology Departments: Analysis Using the NIH RePORTER System

This study aimed to characterize recent National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for diagnostic radiology departments at US medical schools. This retrospective study did not use private identifiable information and thus did not constitute human subjects research. The public NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditure and Results system was used to extract information regarding 887 NIH awards in 2015 to departments of "Radiation-Diagnostic/Oncology." Internet searches were conducted to identify each primary investigator (PI)'s university web page, which was used to identify the PI's departmental affiliation, gender, degree, and academic rank. A total of 649 awards to diagnostic radiology departments, based on these web searches, were included; awards to radiation oncology departments were excluded. Characteristics were summarized descriptively. A total of 61 unique institutions received awards. The top five funded institutions represented 33.6% of all funding. The most common institutes administering these awards were the National Cancer Institute (29.0%) and the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (21.6%). Women received 15.9% of awards and 13.3% of funding, with average funding per award of $353,512 compared to $434,572 for men. PhDs received 77.7% of all awards, with average funding per award of $457,413 compared to $505,516 for MDs. Full professors received 51.2% of awards (average funding per award of $532,668), compared to assistant professors who received 18.4% of awards ($260,177). Average funding was $499,859 for multiple-PI awards vs. $397,932 for single-PI awards. Common spending categories included "neurosciences," "cancer," "prevention," and "aging." NIH funding for diagnostic radiology departments has largely been awarded to senior-ranking male PhD investigators, commonly at large major academic medical centers. Initiatives are warranted to address such disparities and promote greater diversity in NIH funding among diagnostic radiology investigators.

It's 10 pm; Do You Know Where Your Data Are? Data Provenance, Curation, and Storage.

High integrity data retention and curation are critical for preserving the scientific record and informing future discovery.1 However, these steps are often neglected or inadequate because of lack of a tractable, easily operated approach. We offer general guidelines and an exemplar method that is applicable to many, but by no means all, laboratories. Data generated from National Institutes of Health funding should be stored for 3 years after the end of the last competitive renewal. In some cases, data related to patients and patents has longer storage obligations. Data storage rules are in evolution and may differ among various funding agencies, institutions, and journals. The data belong to the host institution, but the responsibility for storage (ie, stewardship) is typically transferred to individual investigators, many of whom have insufficient understanding of or infrastructure for this important role.2 While authors are routinely asked to affirm their accountability for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved,3 there is no standard infrastructure for sharing all primary data among all authors concurrently during drafting of an article, much less after publication. If you have worked in a laboratory for much time, you will know it is sometimes difficult to locate original data. Some of these challenges are magnified by moving laboratory locations, storing data on proprietary and outmoded platforms, lack of a clear paper trail after laboratory personnel move on, or multiple collaborators generating data at various sites. In general, older data are harder to follow compared with newer data. These truths became starkly evident to me (M.E. Anderson) after a former laboratory member was discovered to have engaged in scientific misconduct. While there was no doubt about his transgressions involving manipulated …

Precision medicine and pharmacogenetics: what does oncology have that addiction medicine does not?

Precision, personalized or stratified medicine, which promises to deliver the right treatment to the right patient, is a topic of international interest in both the lay press and the scientific literature. A key aspect of precision medicine is the identification of biomarkers that predict the response to medications (i.e. pharmacogenetics). We examined why, despite the great strides that have been made in biomarker identification in many areas of medicine, only in oncology has there been substantial progress in their clinical implementation. We also considered why progress in this effort has lagged in addiction medicine. We compared the development of pharmacogenetic biomarkers in oncology, cardiovascular medicine (where developments are also promising) and addictive disorders. The first major reason for the success of oncologic pharmacogenetics is ready access to tumor tissue, which allows in-vitro testing and insights into cancer biology. The second major reason is funding, with cancer research receiving, by far, the largest allocation by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) during the past two decades. The second largest allocation of research funding has gone to cardiovascular disease research. Addictions research received a much smaller NIH funding allocation, despite the major impact that tobacco use, alcohol consumption and illicit drug use have on the public health and healthcare costs. Greater support for research on the personalized treatment of addictive disorders can be expected to yield disproportionately large benefits to the public health and substantial reductions in healthcare costs.

International Research Funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH): A Bibliometric Analysis of Publications with NIH Funding and Non-US Authors – 2014

International Research Funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH): A Bibliometric Analysis of Publications with NIH Funding and Non-US Authors – 2014

NIH Nutrition Research Funding, Fiscal Years 2012 – 2016

BackgroundNutrition is essential to human growth and development, maintenance of good health, and the prevention and treatment of disease. To further our understanding of nutrition as it relates to human health, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds a broad array of basic and applied research studies every year.ObjectiveIn preparation for the development of the first NIH‐wide nutrition research strategic plan, an analysis was conducted to provide an overview of NIH funded nutrition research for Fiscal Years (FY) 2012 – 2016.MethodsInformation about nutrition research and training supported by the NIH, including grants, contracts and other funding mechanisms, was obtained using the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER) System. RePORTER is an electronic tool that allows users to search a repository of both intramural and extramural NIH‐funded research projects from the past 25 years and access publications (since 1985) and patents resulting from NIH funding. Projects are grouped by the Research, Condition, and Disease Categorization (RCDC) system, a computerized reporting process at the NIH, which is used to define more than 200 categories, including nutrition, that the NIH reports annually to Congress and the public. RCDC uses sophisticated text data mining in conjunction with NIH‐wide definitions used to match projects to research spending categories. These definitions (fingerprints) are compared to each NIH funded research project by searching titles, abstracts, and specific aims to generate a list of research projects that fall into each category. Research projects may meet the criteria of multiple fingerprints, and most nutrition projects are categorized under other spending categories as well. In other words, a project may be counted as nutrition, obesity, and prevention. As there is no reasonable way to assign a percent nutrition using the Nutrition Fingerprint, the dollars for all identified nutrition‐related projects are counted as 100% nutrition.ResultsNIH funding for nutrition research remained stable for Fiscal Years (FY) 2012–2016. The NIH provided approximately $1.5 – $1.6 billion in financial support for over 4000 nutrition research and training projects each year. Half of these projects were also categorized as “Prevention” and/or “Obesity” and just under half were categorized as “Clinical Research”. As a percentage of total NIH research spending, nutrition research funding has been stable at approximately 5% for the past five years. Twenty‐four NIH Institutes and Centers (ICs) and the Office of the Director (OD) support nutrition research. The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) led NIH spending in nutrition‐related research. Cumulatively, nutrition spending by these three institutes and centers (ICs) accounted for more than half of all NIH nutrition related expenditures in each year of this interval. Other large funders of nutrition research are the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). Although the funding, number of projects, and main funding ICs did not change significantly during the 5 years, the major research topics showed more movement. In FY 2012, large sub‐topic areas were Vitamin D, Brown fat, eating disorders, and weight loss; in FY 2016, the gut microbiome, microvascular dysfunction, diabetes prevention and Brown Fat were the largest sub‐topic research areas.ConclusionOver the five years, FY 2012–2016, NIH nutrition research funding has remained largely unchanged in terms of funding and number of projects, but sub‐topic focus areas have changed. An NIH Nutrition Research Strategic Plan could provide useful direction as research sub‐topics evolve over time.Support or Funding InformationNational Institutes of Health