National Institutes Of Health R01 Research Articles

Are females in classical hematology getting a fair share? Uncovering gender disparities in NIH R01 grants.

Gender Disparity remains a pressing issue in academic medicine, notably in classical hematology where females continue to be underrepresented by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for funded R01 grants. In this research, we analyzed ten years of NIH R01 grants funded in classical hematology, covering the period from 2012 to 2022. Of the 250,031 R01 grants funded during this period, females received only 32.9%. Further breakdown of the data by different NIH institutes highlights varying degrees of gender gaps, with specific institutes showing pronounced disparities. While some NIH Institutes have made progress in bridging the gap, others lag, indicating a need for a closer examination of institutional practices. We found that despite modest advancements, less than 50% of R01 grants were funded to females. These findings underscore persistent gender inequity and require concerted efforts to create a more inclusive atmosphere supportive of women's progress in academic medicine.

Are we bridging the gap? A ten-year probe into NIH grants for early-career and independent investigators in oncology.

9010 Background: Ongoing gender disparities persist within National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, specifically evident in NIH R01 grants within Oncology. A crucial aspect of addressing this issue involves a comprehensive investigation of discrepancies between early-career and independent principal investigators (PI). Here we present a ten-year analysis of gender distribution of early career vs. independent grants in the NIH under the field of Oncology. Methods: We implemented an R script utilizing NIH rePORTER, tidyverse, and janitor libraries for data retrieval. This script defined fields for retrieval which looped over fiscal years 2012 to 2022. The script executed API requests with criteria that included fiscal years, activity codes, and search terms that are relevant to oncology to extract grants from NIH rePORTER. We defined the early-career grant category to encompass the top 3 most active NIH K and F grants (K01,K08,K23, F31,F32,F33). In contrast, the independent research grant category included the top 3 most active NIH R grants (R01,R21,R35). The gender library was used to predict the gender of each principal investigator (PI) based on their first name. Ggplot and gtsummary packages were employed for data visualization and statistical analysis, automatically selecting appropriate tests based on data type. Results: Over the fiscal years 2012 to 2022, a total of 44,545 active early-career grants were funded by the NIH. Females (n = 24,243: 54.4% [95% CI:53.7%,55.0%]) surpassed their male counterparts (n = 20,302: 45.6% [95% CI:44.9%, 46.3%]) by holding more active early-career research grants. From 2012 to 2022, there was a significant upward trend that was noted in active early-career grants funded to females (1,818 to 2,969, p < 0.01). Similarly, males exhibited a noteworthy increase in these grants when comparing 2012 to 2022 (1,780 to 1,986, p < 0.001). Despite both genders experiencing an uptrend in active early-career NIH grants, females demonstrated a 48.3% increase, while males experienced a more modest 11.5% increase. In comparison, a total of 236,804 active independent research NIH grants were disbursed in the NIH R category from 2012 to 2022. Females (78,439: 33.1% [95% CI:32.7%,33.4%]) had fewer active independent NIH research grants compared to males (158,365: 66.9% [95% CI:66.6%,67.1%]). Males observed a 6.4% increase in independent NIH grants, rising from 14,419 to 15,343, while females exhibited a notable 48% increase, expanding from 6,193 to 9,195, from 2012 to 2022. Conclusions: In the realm of oncology, gender disparities are not evident among early career investigators as there were 53.7% of early career grants funded to females over the decade. Conversely, females accounted for only 33.3% of independent research grants. These observations emphasize the importance for targeted interventions to foster equal opportunities within the field of Oncology.

Cracking the code: Can bibliometric attributes predict NIH R01 grant funding outcomes in gastrointestinal oncology? Exploring patterns from a five-year analysis.

9051 Background: The allocation of National Institutes of Health (NIH) R01 grants holds paramount importance for principal investigators in the field of scientific research. In this study, we explore the relationship between bibliometric attributes of principal investigators- specifically H-index, citations, publications, and seniority with the amount of NIH grant funding for R01 grants under gastrointestinal oncology from the fiscal years of 2018 to 2022. Understanding these interrelationships is crucial for researchers aiming to enhance their profiles to secure higher funding amounts from the NIH. Methods: The data was retrieved from the NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditure) using gastrointestinal oncology-related search terms from 2018-2022. The number of citations, publications, H-index, and seniority were obtained from Scopus. The bibliometric attributes of principal investigators were correlated with NIH grant funding amounts. Multiple regression analysis was employed to quantify the predictive power. Additionally, t-tests were performed to examine the significant differences in grant funding between high and low h-index groups. Results: A total of 1652 principal investigators who were awarded a gastrointestinal oncology related R01 grant were included in this study. The H-index consistently showcases a positive correlation with the amount of grant funding, reaching statistical significance in 2020 (H-index coefficient=1510.49, p value=0.07). Concurrently, t-tests emphasize the importance of H-index, illustrating that PI’s with high H-indexes (H-index >42) secure significantly higher funding (average grant=$423,806, p=0.006 compared to those in the lower H-index group (average grant=$420,306, p=0.004). Conversely, citations showcased mixed results, with 2020 revealing a significant negative correlation (coefficient: -1.63, p= 0.04). Publications displayed a strong positive effect in 2021 (coefficient: 231.68, p value=0.10). Seniority exhibited varying impacts across years, notably a significant negative relationship in 2018 (coefficient: -3013.9, p=0.025). Conclusions: This study illuminates the complex interplay between PI’s bibliometric attributes and NIH grant funding outcomes. Notably, high h-index values consistently correlate with a higher funding amount for NIH grants. Although these insights contribute to a deeper understanding of the factors influencing NIH grants, further analysis should investigate additional variables that may significantly impact NIH grant funding.

Integrating sleep health into resilience research.

Sleep is a biological necessity that is a critical determinant of mental and physical well-being. Sleep may promote resilience by enhancing an individual's biological preparedness to resist, adapt and recover from a challenge or stressor. This report analyzes currently active National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants focussed on sleep and resilience, specifically examining the design of studies that explore sleep as a factor that promotes health maintenance, survivorship, or protective/preventive pathways. A search of NIH R01 and R21 research project grants that received funding in Fiscal Years (FY) 2016-2021 and focussed on sleep and resilience was conducted. A total of 16 active grants from six NIH institutes met the inclusion criteria. Most grants were funded in FY 2021 (68.8%), used the R01 mechanism (81.3%), were observational studies (75.0%), and measured resilience in the context of resisting a stressor/challenge (56.3%). Early adulthood and midlife were most commonly studied and over half of the grants focussed on underserved/underrepresented populations. NIH-funded studies focussed on sleep and resilience, or the ways in which sleep can influence an individual's ability to resist, adapt, or recover from a challenging event. This analysis highlights an important gap and the need to expand research focussed on sleep as a promotor of molecular, physiological, and psychological resilience.

Comparison of academic productivity and funding support between United States and international medical graduate vascular surgeons

ObjectiveThe demand for vascular surgeons in the United States stands to far exceed the current supply. International medical graduates (IMGs) are not only vital to meeting the country’s growing health care needs, but also help to advance clinical research and medical education in the field of vascular surgery. Nearly 17% of practicing vascular surgeons in the United States are IMGs, yet little is known about their relative contributions to academic vascular surgery. Our study aims to compare the academic profiles and funding support for IMG vascular surgeons to that of their US medical graduate (USMG) counterparts. MethodsA cross-sectional study was performed on all IMG and USMG academic vascular surgeons practicing in US-based hospitals with vascular surgery residency and/or fellowship programs. In addition to the baseline surgeon characteristics, academic profiles and research output were also collected. Furthermore, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) research reporting tool and open payments database were queried for any funding/payments to surgeons in both groups. Matching for year of vascular surgery training program graduation was performed where appropriate. ResultsA total of 908 academic vascular surgeons were included; 759 (83.6%) were USMGs and 149 (16.4%) were IMGs. The median year of graduation was comparable between the two groups, but USMGs had a significantly higher proportion of female surgeons (23.6% vs 10.7%; P = .0003). There were no significant differences in the academic profiles and leadership positions between the two groups. Although research productivity is similar between the two groups, IMG surgeons were more likely to have first or senior-authorship papers (47.1% vs 37.5%; P < .001). Additionally, faculty departments chaired/cheifed by a USMG were less likely to be staffed with IMG vascular surgeons (1.6 surgeons vs 3.1 surgeons; P < .0001). Following grant analysis, USMG surgeons received more NIH R01 grants (5.7% vs 1.3%; P = .026). R01-funded surgeons had significantly greater research output by number of publications (121.0 vs 47.5), citations (3872 vs 938), H-index (32.0 vs 17.5), and average journal impact factor (>10: 86.7% vs 33.3%) (all P < .001). ConclusionsThe efforts to further diversify vascular surgery are vital to better serving an increasingly diverse US population, amid growing disparities in health care. Although IMGs account for a minority of academic vascular surgeons, and contribute significantly to their published research, they had less NIH R01 funding, warranting further investigation.

How Well Are Pharmacists Represented in National Institutes of Health R01 Funding to United States Schools of Pharmacy?

Pharmacists are essential healthcare providers but historically are not well represented as principal investigators (PIs) of R01 grants by the United States (US) National Institutes of Health (NIH). Pharmacy organizations have taken steps to provide pharmacists with research training to improve their chances of achieving PI status. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the NIH RePORTER website about R01 grants awarded to PIs affiliated with US Schools of Pharmacy (SOPs) for the fiscal years 2005-2019. Information regarding professional degrees was supplemented using data from the PIs' institutional website profiles and other internet-based sources. Only doctorate degrees obtained within the US were included for clinically related degrees. Data regarding more than one year of funding for the same project, equipment supplements, and diversity supplements were excluded to focus on unique projects in year one of funding. PhDs were the primary unique PIs of R01 grants at US SOPs (&gt;90%). Pharmacist representation as unique PIs increased over the 15 years but was still only 10.1% for the years 2015-2019. There was a higher percentage of female pharmacists as unique PIs than female non-pharmacists. Pharmacists are currently underrepresented as unique PIs for NIH R01 grants. This conclusion is limited by not knowing how many pharmacist R01 applications were submitted.

Health disparities in regional anesthesia and analgesia for the management of acute pain in trauma patients.

Health disparities in regional anesthesia and analgesia for the management of acute pain in trauma patients.

Promoting the Pipeline of Diverse Individuals Within Gastroenterology: Reflections From AGA FORWARD Program Scholars

Promoting the Pipeline of Diverse Individuals Within Gastroenterology: Reflections From AGA FORWARD Program Scholars

Distinct myeloid antigen presenting cells dictate differential fates of tumor-specific CD8 T cells in pancreatic cancer

Abstract Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) contains numerous protumor myeloid cells at the expense of antitumor dendritic cells (cDC1s). We identify that tumor antigenicity is a major determinant of myeloid composition and functionality. Neoantigen-tumors contained pro-tumor macrophages and a paucity of cDC1s whereas neoantigen+ tumors accumulate cDC1s via Xcr1 signaling and macrophages exhibit a diminished role. Effective immunotherapies increased splenic cDC1s, which were required for endogenous T cell expansion following α-PD-L1 and transferred effector and memory T cells. Batf3−/− mice, which lack cDC1s, failed to spontaneously generate tumor-specific CD8 T cells and were resistant to T cell therapy and α-PD-L1. In contrast, agonistic α-CD40 exhibited partial benefit in Batf3−/− mice and expanded atypical tumor-specific CD8 T cells. Monocyte depletion abrogated atypical tumor-specific CD8 T cell priming yet enhanced α-CD40-mediated antitumor activity in Batf3−/− mice. In contrast, α-Gr1 abrogated the therapeutic benefit of CD40 agonist in Batf3−/− mice. In sum, our study supports that CD40 agonist promotes a cDC1-dependent antitumor immunity and a monocyte-dependent protumor arm of immune system. These results further underscore an essential antigen presenting role for cDC1s in the expansion and differentiation of naïve, effector, and memory T cells into Klrg1+ potent cytotoxic effector T cells capable of targeting pancreatic cancer. M.R. is supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) T32 AI 007313 E.J.S. is supported by NIH T35 AI118620 I.M.S. is supported by NIH R01 CA249393, R01 CA255039, Department of Defense #PA200286, an American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Pancreatic Cancer Action Network Career Development Award (17-20-25-STRO), an AACR Pancreatic Cancer Action Network Catalyst Award (19-35-STRO), American Cancer Society Institutional Research Grant (124166-IRG-58-001-55-IRG65).

2021 RSNA Outstanding Researcher

HomeRadiologyVol. 302, No. 1 PreviousNext CommunicationsFree AccessSpecial Communications2021 RSNA Outstanding ResearcherMary C. MahoneyMary C. MahoneyMary C. MahoneyPublished Online:Nov 30 2021https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.219024MoreSectionsPDF ToolsImage ViewerAdd to favoritesCiteTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked In Pamela K. Woodard, MDDownload as PowerPointOpen in Image Viewer A leading researcher in cardiothoracic imaging and a generous mentor, Pamela K. Woodard, MD, specializes in cardiac CT and MRI techniques and in translating novel cardiovascular PET radiotracers into human subjects.“Dr Woodard is truly an outstanding researcher,” said RSNA President Mary C. Mahoney, MD. “She is respected not only for her enormous success in funded research, but her generous mentoring of so many of our future leaders in imaging research.”Dr Woodard is the Hugh Monroe Wilson professor of radiology and professor of biomedical engineering at the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University in St Louis, Mo, where she is also the senior vice chair and division director of Radiology Research Facilities. In this role, she provides administrative oversight to the directors of the department’s 10 National Institutes of Health (NIH) research facilities, including the preclinical and clinical imaging PET and MRI research facilities and the Cyclotron Facility. She is also director of the Center for Clinical Imaging Research, head of Cardiac MR/CT, director of the Radiology Research Resident Track, and the program director of the NIH-funded T32 TOP-TIER (Training Opportunities in Translational Imaging Education and Research) clinician-scientist training program in translational imaging research.Dr Woodard received her undergraduate degree from Duke University in Durham, NC, and her medical degree from the Duke University School of Medicine. She completed her internship in internal medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a residency in diagnostic radiology at Duke University, and a fellowship in cardiothoracic imaging at the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology.Following early success in securing grant funding, including a 1996 Siemens Medical Solutions/RSNA Research Fellow Grant and a 1999 Carestream Health/RSNA Research Scholar Grant, Dr Woodard secured multiple NIH grants. Early in her career, she was a principal investigator (PI) on the landmark NIH-funded PIOPED II project, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which established multi-detector CT as the principal method for pulmonary embolism diagnosis. She also led a key project on the Washington University NIH contract, Programs of Excellence in Nanotechnology, which developed a receptor-targeted radiotracer for atherosclerotic plaque imaging.Dr Woodard currently leads her own research program and is a PI or MPI on three NIH R01 grants for the translation of cardiovascular radiotracers into humans. She has nearly 200 peer-reviewed manuscripts, several patents, and has served as a charter member on NIH study sections, including Clinical and Integrative Cardiovascular Sciences (CICS) and Medical Imaging (MEDI), and chair of the NIH study section, Imaging Guided Interventions and Surgery. She has received numerous awards for her work, including being named an Academy of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging Research (ARBIR) Distinguished Investigator.A revered leader in organized radiology, Dr Woodard serves on the board of directors of ARBIR and the Missouri Radiological Society. She also serves on the American College of Radiology (ACR) Board of Chancellors as the ACR chair of the Commission on Research. She is a past president of the North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging. Her expertise has informed the R&E Foundation Research Grant Study Section and the Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance.Article HistoryPublished online: Nov 30 2021Published in print: Jan 2022 FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRecommended Articles Linda Moy, MD, Named New Editor of RadiologyRadioGraphics2022Volume: 42Issue: 2pp. E37-E38Linda Moy, MD, Named New Editor of RadiologyRadiology2022Volume: 303Issue: 1pp. 3-4David A. Bluemke, MD, PhD, Named Editor of RadiologyRadiology2016Volume: 282Issue: 1pp. 10-11David A. Bluemke, MD, PhD, Named Editor of RadiologyRadioGraphics2017Volume: 37Issue: 1pp. 5-62020 RSNA Outstanding ResearcherRadiology2020Volume: 298Issue: 1pp. 1See More RSNA Education Exhibits Imaging of Suspected Pulmonary Embolism and Deep Venous Thrombosis in Obese PatientsDigital Posters2020Clinical Aspects Relating to Acute Pulmonary Embolism ImagingDigital Posters2018Acute Pulmonary Embolism: The Role of the Radiologist from Diagnosis to TreatmentDigital Posters2018 RSNA Case Collection Acute pulmonary embolismRSNA Case Collection2022Carotid WebRSNA Case Collection2020Pulmonary Embolism with Right Heart StrainRSNA Case Collection2020 Vol. 302, No. 1 Metrics Altmetric Score PDF download

A 22-year analysis of the Society for Vascular Surgery Foundation Mentored Research Career Development Award in fostering vascular surgeon-scientists

ObjectiveVascular surgeon-scientists shape the future of our specialty through rigorous scientific investigation and innovation in clinical care and by training the next generation of surgeon-scientists. The Society for Vascular Surgery Foundation (SVSF) supports the development of surgeon-scientists through the Mentored Research Career Development Award (SVSF-CDA) program, providing supplemental funds to recipients of National Institutes of Health (NIH) K08/K23 grants. We evaluated the ongoing success of this mission. MethodsThe curriculum vitae of the 41 recipients of the SVSF supplemental funding from 1999 to 2021 were collected and reviewed to evaluate the academic achievements, define the programmatic accomplishments and return on investment, and identify areas for strategic improvement. ResultsFor nearly 22 years, the SVSF has awarded supplemental funds for 31 K08 and 10 K23 grants to SVS members from 32 institutions. Of the 41 awardees, 34 have completed their K-funding and 7 are still being supported. Eleven awardees (27%) were women, including six of the current awardees (75%). However, only slight ethnic/racial diversity was found in the program. The awardees had obtained K-funding ∼4 years after becoming faculty. Eleven awardees (27%) were supported by Howard Hughes, NIH F32, or NIH T32 grants during training. To date, the SVSF has committed $12 million to the SVSF-CDA program. Among the 34 who have completed their K-funding, 21 (62%) successfully obtained NIH R01, Veterans Affairs, or Department of Defense funding. The awardees have secured >$114 million in federal funding, representing a 9.5-fold financial return on investment for the SVSF. In addition to research endeavors, 11 awardees (27%) hold endowed professorships and 19 (46%) have secured tenure at their institution. Many of the awardees hold or have held leadership positions, including 18 division chiefs (44%), 11 program directors (27%), 5 chairs of departments of surgery (12%), and 1 dean (2%). Eleven (27%) have served as president of a regional or national society, and 24 (59%) participate in NIH study sections. Of the 34 who have completed their K-funding, 15 (44%) have continued to maintain active independent research funding. ConclusionsThe SVSF-CDA program is highly effective in the development of vascular surgeon-scientists who contribute to the leadership and growth of academic vascular surgery with a 9.5-fold return on investment. The number of female awardees has increased in recent years but ethnic/racial diversity has remained poor. Although 62% successfully transitioned to federal funding, fewer than one half have remained funded over time. Retention in research and increasing diversity for the awardees are major concerns and important areas of strategic focus for the SVSF.

Model organism databases are in jeopardy.

Model organism databases are in jeopardy.

National Institutes of Health Career Development (K) Awards to Young Surgeons: An Academic Milestone or One-hit Wonder?

To assess contemporary trends in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Career Development (K) Awards within the Departments of Surgery and its impact on the likelihood of achieving independent R01 grants. The NIH provides K-type Career Development Awards to nurture young clinicians toward a productive academic career, thereby maintaining a pipeline of physician-scientists. However, the impact of K awards on career trajectory of surgeons remains unclear. The NIH grant data was queried for all new K08/K23 grants awarded to Departments of Surgery (1999-2019). Principal Investigators' data and grant-related information was obtained. The NIH awarded 298 K08/23 surgical grants ($41,893,170) over the last 2 decades. Median budget increased from $116,370 to $167,508 (P<0.001). Of grantees, 83.2% were MDs, 15.1% MD/PhD, and 1.7% PhDs, with 25.2% being women. Principal Investigators' were mostly practicing surgeons (91.1%) with fellowship training (82.4%) and young in their careers {4 [interquartile ranges (IQR) 4] years of experience}. Vascular surgery (15.9%), Complex General Surgical Oncology (15.1%), and Trauma/Critical Care (14.6%) were the most frequent specialties. Awards were associated with 3,336 publications [median 8/project (IQR 13)]. The majority of K grantees (77.2%) currently hold an academic faculty position. Only 32.2% of awardees received independent R01 grant funding, at a median of 5.5 years (IQR 5) after their K awards. Sex (P = 0.71), previous fellowship training (P = 0.63), type of surgical specialty (P = 0.72), or MD/PhD degree (P = 0.75) were not associated with increased likelihood of achieving a subsequent R01 award. Although the majority of K awardees maintain an academic career, only a limited number of grantees progress to obtain NIH R01 funding. Increased mentorship, financial support, and infrastructure are needed to facilitate career development awardees opportunities to enhance their ability to achieve independent funding.

Gender Differences in Research Project Grants and R01 Grants at the National Institutes of Health.

ObjectivesThe National Institutes of Health (NIH), which is the world's largest funding source for research, offers various types of competitive grants depending on the duration, research type, and budget. The Research Project Grant (RPG) is the oldest mechanism for grant allocation that is used by the NIH. In this study, we explored the gender trends of NIH RPGs and R01 grants over the last two decades.MethodsBy utilizing the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool (RePORT), data for gender were extracted, and the percentage of women as RPGs Investigators, R01-equivalent grant including R01 type 1 and type 2 grant awardees, from 1998 to 2019 were tabulated. The absolute change was calculated.ResultsFrom 1998 to 2019, the percentage of female RPG awardees has increased. However, the success rates for female RPG applicants have decreased during the same period. The funding and success rates for new R01 awards have been similar for both men and women, but women have been less successful at the renewal of R01-equivalent awards.ConclusionGender disparity exists in awardees of higher RPGs, including the R01 award. This highlights the need for further actions to ensure gender parity in grant allocations at the NIH.

National Institutes of Health Funding in Internal Medicine: Analysis of Physicians Receiving an R01 Grant Between 2008 and 2017.

IntroductionAs the world’s largest funding source for biomedical research, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) supports physician-scientists with a discipline-specific R01 grant. Recently, scholarly activity disparities regarding investigator degree and gender have been highlighted in the medical literature among allopathic and osteopathic investigators of various medical backgrounds. We aimed to assess trends in internal medicine NIH R01 grants over the past decade.MethodologyInternal medicine R01 funding was retrospectively obtained from a centralized online NIH database encompassing 2008 through 2017. Principal investigators (PIs) were then categorized by gender and academic degree(s). Two-way analysis of variance was used to analyze NIH grant funding trends over the time period studied.ResultsA total of 5,089 NIH R01s were awarded to internal medicine PIs, with an average value per grant of $469,270. Awardees were predominantly male (71.5%, 3,639/5,089). Most awards were issued to PIs with an MD degree (62.4%, 3,173/5,089), followed by PhD degree (36.3%, 1,845/5,089). DOs accounted for five awards over the time period studied (0.15%). MDs were awarded higher funding than PhDs ($466,494 and $421,576, p < 0.001), and females were awarded higher amounts than males ($462,771 and $444,868, p < 0.001). Investigators who held a second degree received more funding than PIs with a single degree ($476,693 and $439,693, p < 0.001).ConclusionIn the decade under investigation, both gender and degree disparities existed within NIH R01 funding for PIs in the field of internal medicine, and osteopathic representation accounted for a paucity of R01 funding.

Talkspace receives NIH grants to conduct telepsychiatry research

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has awarded the teletherapy platform Talkspace two grants worth nearly $7 million to research patients' experiences with digital mental health services. The first grant is almost $4 million and comes from the NIH's National Institute of Mental Health Small Business Innovation Research program. It will support a four‐year randomized controlled trial that compares daily messaging‐only therapy to once‐weekly live video session therapy. The study will track differences in outcomes, engagement, ratings of the therapist, type of treatment provided and more to gauge the effectiveness of the different forms of care. Talkspace was also given a $3 million NIH R01 grant for which it will partner with the University of Washington's School of Medicine Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering, and Mental Health America. Together, the organizations will investigate the types of traits among patients who benefit the most from digital therapy, as well as how to enhance the onboarding and orientation process to improve user engagement and outcomes.

Calorie Restriction Improves Lipid-Related Emerging Cardiometabolic Risk Factors in Healthy Non-Obese Adults: Distinct Influences of BMI and Sex From CALERIE™ - A Multicentre, Phase 2, Randomised Controlled Trial

Background: For many cardiovascular risk factors there is no lower limit to which further reduction will result in decreased disease risk; this includes values extending ranges of normal healthy adults. This seems to be true for new emerging metabolic risk factors identified by innovative technological advances. Further, there seems to be ever evolving evidence of differential responses to lifestyle interventions by sex and body compositions in the normal range. In this secondary analysis, we had the opportunity to test these principles for newly identified molecular biomarkers of cardiometabolic risk in a young, normal weight healthy population undergoing calorie restriction for two years. Methods: The Comprehensive Assessment of Long-term Effects of Reducing Intake of Energy (CALERIE™) was a 24-month, randomized controlled trial in healthy, non-obese adults to evaluate the potential for calorie restriction (CR) to promote anti-aging adaptations, including those associated with disease risk. 218 participants (age 37.9±7.19 years and BMI 25.1±1.73 kg/m2, mean±SD) were randomized 2:1 to 24 months of CR (prescribed as 25% reduction from baseline calorie intake) versus ad libitum (AL). Fasting plasma from baseline, 12, and 24 months was used for assessments of lipoproteins, metabolites, and inflammatory markers using nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy.­­­­­­­­­ Results: Averaging 11.9% CR, the CR group had reductions at 12 and 24 months in the cardiovascular disease risk markers, apolipoprotein B and GlycA, and risks for insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes—Lipoprotein Insulin Resistance Index and Diabetes Risk Index (all PCRvsAL ≤0.0009). Insulin resistance and diabetes risk improvements resulted from CR-induced alterations in lipoproteins, specifically reductions in triglyceride-rich lipoprotein particles and LDL particles, a shift to larger HDL particles (more effective cholesterol transporters), and reductions in branched chain amino acids (BCAAs) (all PCRvsAL ≤0.004). These CR responses were more pronounced in overweight than normal weight participants and greater in men than women. Conclusions: In normal to slightly overweight adults without overt risk factors or disease, 12 months of ~12% CR improved risks of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. These CR-mediated benefits accrued via reduced inflammation and branched chain amino acids, and a shift from atherogenic to cholesterol transporting lipoproteins. Additionally, CR benefits were influenced by sex and BMI, factors meriting close attention in future investigations of lifestyle-mediated improvements in disease risk factors. Clinical Trial Registration Details: NCT00427193. Funding Information: CALERIETM was conducted as a National Institutes of Health (NIH) U-grant (U01 AG022132, U01 AG020478, U01 AG020487 U01 AG020480 ). As defined by this mechanism, the study design and conduct was a collaborative effort between internal NIH and external study investigators. Additional project funding was provided by NIH R01 AG054840 (MO, VBK); R33 AG070455 (KMH, DCP, MB, SBR, CKM, LMR, SKD, CFP, CJR, WEK); P30 DK072476 (CKM, LMR); and U54 GM104940 (CKM, LMR) and without any additional scientific contribution or other role in this report. Declaration of Interests: MAC, IS, and JDO are employees of Labcorp. All other authors have no conflicts interests. Ethics Approval Statement: The study protocol (NCT00427193) was approved by the institutional review boards at all participating clinical centers (Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO; Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA; Tufts University, Boston, MA), and the coordinating center (Duke University, Durham, NC). All study participants provided written informed consent and study oversight was provided by a Data and Safety Monitoring Board.

Dedicated Residency Research Time and Its Relationship to Urologic Career Academic Success

OBJECTIVETo explore the relationship between research time during urologic training and career academic success. METHODSWe included urologists graduating residency between 2002 and 2008 from 36 programs affiliated with a top 50 hospital for urology as ranked by the United States News and World Report, and collected research time during residency, fellowship training, current appointment (private practice, assistant professor, associate professor, professor, chair), national institutes of health (NIH) grant accrual, NIH R01 grant accrual, and current H-index in Scopus database. Publication output during and after residency was identified through the PubMed database. RESULTSIn our cohort of 543 urologists, 66.3% of graduating trainees pursued private practice. Increasing residency research time was associated with increased publication count (P <.001), pursuit of professor positions (P <.001), and NIH funding (P <.001). One year of dedicated research increased the odds of being in the top 10th percentile of publication output during residency (odds ratio [OR]: 5.7, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.7-12.1), pursuing a fellowship (OR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.3-3.1), promotion to professor (OR: 4.9, 95% CI: 2.0-12.2), obtaining a NIH grant (OR: 6.2, 95% CI: 2.3-16.5), and decreased the odds of pursuing private practice (OR: 0.4, 95% CI: 0.3-0.6). As amount of time dedicated to research in urologic residency increased from 3-4 to 6-12 months, OR increased for career academic success metrics. CONCLUSIONAlthough a minority of trainees enter academics, dedicated time for research in urologic residency is associated with career academic success, with more research time associated with increased publication output, academic appointments, and grant funding.

Underrepresentation of functional conditions of the lower urinary tract in adults in US federal research funding.

Evaluation and treatment of functional conditions of the lower urinary tract (fcLUT), a subset of benign urinary tract conditions, is highly subjective due to overlapping symptomatology. Despite high prevalence and socioeconomic cost, there has been little improvement in their treatment and lack of progress in understanding their pathophysiology. This study investigates trends in quantity, monetary amounts, and awardees' characteristics of federally funded research awards for fcLUT compared to nonurologic benign conditions (NUBCs) and urologic malignancies. Data were extracted from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and federal RePORTER databases in December 2019. We identified currently active awards in fcLUT, NUBC, and malignant urologic conditions and the associated demographic features of awardees. The authors also examined temporal funding trends for such awards. These database searches revealed that there are consistently fewer awards and funding dollars for the study of fcLUT compared to other benign conditions with similar prevalences. While most research topics have received increased funding in awards and overall funding dollars over time, fcLUT funding has remained relatively flat. Urologists are also underrepresented; only 11 of the 86 recipients of NIH R01 awards to study fcLUT have clinical training in urology. Even when compared to NUBC, funding for the study of fcLUT remains low and has stagnated over time. Further, investigators who are clinicians in the field of urology are in the minority of those doing this study. Given the need for clinical perspectives in fcLUT research, the lack of urologist representation will inhibit discovery and translational advances.

National Institutes of Health Funding in Obstetrics and Gynecology: Analysis of R01 Grants by Degree and Gender

Introduction: Limited data currently exist regarding the demographics of principal investigators (PIs) in obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN), who have received an R01 grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).Objective: This study investigated funding differences among gender and advanced degree for PIs in the disciplines of OBGYN.Methods: Retrospective data were collected from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER) tool to identify OBGYN PIs who received an R01 grant between 2008 and 2017. Results: Between 2008 and 2017, the NIH awarded 263 R01 grants totaling $113,326,883 in funding to investigators in OBGYN. Male PIs and PIs holding a non-medical degree were awarded the majority of R01 grants (52.47% and 55.51%, respectively). Zero osteopathic (Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine [DO]) physicians were awarded an R01 grant in OBGYN during this time period. Females were awarded larger dollar amounts than males ($449,556 vs $414,003, p=0.04). Allopathic (Doctor of Medicine [MD]) physicians were awarded larger grants than scientists holding a non-medical degree ($467,849 vs $401,291, p<0.01). Both male and female MD physicians were awarded more dollars per grant as compared with PIs holding a non-medical degree (p=0.01 and p<0.01, respectively).Conclusions: Between 2008 and 2017, a degree disparity was found to exist for investigators who received an NIH R01 grant in OBGYN. Females and investigators holding an MD degree were awarded larger total grants than their male and non-physician counterparts. Further research needs to be undertaken to understand the degree disparity and recent funding trends by the NIH.