Publication rates from biomedical and behavioral and social science R01s funded by the National Institutes of Health

Machine Learning-based Analysis of Publications Funded by the National Institutes of Health's Initial COVID-19 Pandemic Response

Background

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) mobilized more than $4 billion in extramural funding for the COVID-19 pandemic. Assessing the research output from this effort is crucial to understanding how the scientific community leveraged federal funding and responded to this public health crisis.

Methods

NIH-funded COVID-19 grants awarded between January 2020 and December 2021 were identified from NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results using the "COVID-19 Response" filter. PubMed identifications of publications under these grants were collected and the NIH iCite tool was used to determine citation counts and focus (eg, clinical, animal). iCite and the NIH's LitCOVID database were used to identify publications directly related to COVID-19. Publication titles and Medical Subject Heading terms were used as inputs to a machine learning-based model built to identify common topics/themes within the publications.

Results and Conclusions

We evaluated 2401 grants that resulted in 14 654 publications. The majority of these papers were published in peer-reviewed journals, though 483 were published to preprint servers. In total, 2764 (19%) papers were directly related to COVID-19 and generated 252 029 citations. These papers were mostly clinically focused (62%), followed by cell/molecular (32%), and animal focused (6%). Roughly 60% of preprint publications were cell/molecular-focused, compared with 26% of nonpreprint publications. The machine learning-based model identified the top 3 research topics to be clinical trials and outcomes research (8.5% of papers), coronavirus-related heart and lung damage (7.3%), and COVID-19 transmission/epidemiology (7.2%). This study provides key insights regarding how researchers leveraged federal funding to study the COVID-19 pandemic during its initial phase.

Sources of funding for research articles in medical education journals from 1999 to 2019

BACKGROUND

Prior studies report that most published medical education research is unfunded. We sought to determine the extent and sources of funding for medical education research articles published in leading journals, and how these have changed in the last two decades.

METHODS

All research articles published in Academic Medicine, Advances in Health Sciences Education, Medical Education and Medical Teacher in 1999, 2004, 2009, 2014, and 2019 were reviewed for funding declarations. Funding sources were categorised as: government; university; healthcare organisation; private not-for-profit organisation; and for-profit company. Time trends were analysed using the Cochran-Armitage test.

RESULTS

1822 articles were analysed. Over the aggregate 20-year period, 44% of all articles reported funding, with the proportion increasing from 30% in 1999 to 50% in 2019 (p < .001). The proportion of articles with government (10% to 16%, p = .049), university (6% to 17% p < .001), and not-for-profit funding sources (15% to 20%, p = .04) increased. Proportions of healthcare (3% to 4%, p = .45) and for-profit funding (2% to 1%, p = .25) did not significantly change with time.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the last 20 years, the proportion of funded published medical education research has significantly increased, as has funding from government, universities, and not-for-profit sources. This may assist researchers in identifying funders with a track record of supporting medical education research, and enhances transparency of where research funding in the field originates.

Is our public research money well spent? Publication of research outputs from Health Research Council of New Zealand-funded studies: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the reporting of results from the projects and programmes funded by the Health Research Council (HRC) New Zealand.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional analysis.

SETTING

Research projects and programmes funded by the HRC New Zealand from 2006 to 2014.

PARTICIPANTS

Publicly available data provided by the HRC.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The number and proportion with evidence of publication and dissemination of a research output from HRC grants and the time taken to disseminate the results.

RESULTS

Of the 374 HRC grants from 2006 to 2014, there was no evidence of publication or reporting of any research output for 48 studies (13%). Of the 326 (87%) grants with research outputs, there was a mean dissemination time of 4.73 years (SD 2.37). The total funding provided by the HRC was NZ$471 663 336, while the 48 grants with no evidence of dissemination represented NZ$47 095 727 (10%).

CONCLUSIONS

Thirteen per cent of the HRC projects and programmes from 2006 to 2014 have not contributed to the healthcare evidence as their results remain unknown.