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

OBJECTIVES

Bibliometrics, such as the Hirsch index (h-index) and the more recently developed relative citation ratio (RCR), are utilized to evaluate research productivity. Our study evaluates demographics, research productivity, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding in academic otology.

METHODS

Academic otologists were identified, and their demographics were collected using institutional faculty profiles (N = 265). Funding data were obtained using the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Reports Database. The h-index was calculated using Scopus and mean (m-RCR) and weighted RCR (w-RCR) were calculated using the NIH iCite tool.

RESULTS

H-index (aOR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10-1.27, p < 0.001), but not m-RCR (aOR 1.50, 95% CI 0.97-2.31, p = 0.069) or w-RCR (aOR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99-1.00, p = 0.231), was associated with receiving NIH funding. Men had greater h-index (16 vs. 9, p < 0.001) and w-RCR (51.8 vs. 23.0, p < 0.001), but not m-RCR (1.3 vs. 1.3, p = 0.269) than women. Higher academic rank was associated with greater h-index and w-RCR (p < 0.001). Among assistant professors, men had greater h-index than women (9.0 vs. 8.0, p = 0.025). At career duration 11-20 years, men had greater h-index (14.0 vs. 8.0, p = 0.009) and w-RCR (52.7 vs. 25.8, p = 0.022) than women.

CONCLUSION

The h-index has a strong relationship with NIH funding in academic otology. Similar h-index, m-RCR, and w-RCR between men and women across most academic ranks and career durations suggests production of similarly impactful research. The m-RCR may correct some deficiencies of time-dependent bibliometrics and its consideration in academic promotion and research funding allocation may promote representation of women in otology.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A Laryngoscope, 2024.

Analysis of National Institutes of Health Funding for the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background

Evaluating the National Institute's Health's (NIH's) response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic via grants and clinical trials is crucial to determining the impact they had on aiding US citizens. We determined how the NIH's funding for COVID-19 research was disbursed and used by various institutions across the United States.

Methods

We queried NIH RePORTER and isolated COVID-19-related grants from January 2020 to December 2021. We analyzed grant type, geographical location, and awardee institution. Manuscripts published from these grants were quantitatively analyzed. COVID-19 clinical trials were mapped and distances from counties to clinical trial sites were calculated using ArcGis.

Results

A total of 2401 COVID-19 NIH grants resulted in 14 654 manuscripts from $4.2 billion and generated more than 150 000 citations. R01s make up 32% of grants (763/2401) and 8% of funding ($329 million). UM1 grants account for the majority of funding (30.8%; $1.3 Billion). Five states received 50.6% of funding: North Carolina, Washington, New York, California, and Massachusetts. Finally, of the 1806 clinical trials across 1266 sites in the United States, the majority were in metropolitan areas in close proximity to areas of high COVID-19 disease burden.

Conclusions and Relevance

Evaluating the outcome of the NIH's response to the COVID-19 pandemic is of interest to the general public. The present study finds that the NIH disbursed more than $4 billion in funding to large consortiums and clinical trials to develop diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines. Approximately 8% of funding was used for R01 grants. Clinical trial sites were generally located in areas of high COVID-19 burden.

Current status of National Institutes of Health funding for thoracic surgeons in the United States: Beacon of hope or candle in the wind?

OBJECTIVE

Increasing forces threaten the viability of thoracic surgeon-initiated research, a core component of our academic mission. National Institutes of Health funding is a benchmark of research productivity and innovation. This study examined the current status of National Institutes of Health funding for thoracic surgeons.

METHODS

Thoracic surgeon principal investigators on National Institutes of Health-funded grants during June 2010, June 2015, and June 2020 were identified using National Institutes of Health iSearchGrants (version 2.4). American Association of Medical Colleges data were used to identify all surgeons in the United States. Types and total costs of National Institutes of Health-funded grants were compared relative to other surgical specialties.

RESULTS

A total of 61 of 4681 (1.3%), 63 of 4484 (1.4%), and 60 of 4497 (1.3%) thoracic surgeons were principal investigators on 79, 76, and 87 National Institutes of Health-funded grants in 2010, 2015, and 2020, respectively; these rates were higher than those for most other surgical specialties (P ≤ .0001). Total National Institutes of Health costs for Thoracic Surgeon-initiated grants increased 57% from 2010 to 2020, outpacing the 33% increase in total National Institutes of Health budget. Numbers and types of grants varied among cardiovascular, transplant, and oncology subgroups. Although the majority of grants and costs were cardiovascular related, increased National Institutes of Health expenditures primarily were due to funding for transplant and oncology grants. Per-capita costs were highest for transplant-related grants during both years. Percentages of R01-to-total costs were constant at 55%. Rates and levels of funding for female versus male thoracic surgeons were comparable. Awards to 5 surgeons accounted for 33% of National Institutes of Health costs for thoracic surgeon principal investigators in 2020; a similar phenomenon was observed for 2010 and 2015.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term structural changes must be implemented to more effectively nurture the next generation of thoracic surgeon scientists.

Gender distribution and NIH funding rank in dermatology leadership: a cross-sectional analysis

In examining the influence of National Institute of Health (NIH) funding on gender distribution within dermatology leadership roles, a cross-sectional analysis of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accredited dermatology residencies was conducted. The gender of leadership faculty was verified using online resources, while institutions were categorized by their 2022 NIH dermatology funding status. Results revealed that male dermatologists predominantly occupied department chair roles, whereas female dermatologists were more frequently found in associate program director roles, regardless of funding status. Notably, women held most program director positions in the top NIH-funded group, though this difference was not statistically significant due to a smaller sample size. The overall gender distribution has shown progress from 2021, with a significant rise in female associate program directors and a narrowing gender gap for chairs and program directors. Despite NIH funding rank playing a minimal role in gender distribution, our study underscores positive strides towards gender equality in dermatology leadership. Further advocacy for gender balance and additional research on underlying factors are essential for continued progress.

Disparities in violent fatal injury among racial and ethnic minorities, 2009-2019: a portfolio analysis of United States-National Institutes of Health

The excess mortality burden due to violent fatal injuries is an urgent public health issue for adolescents and young adults, especially those from racial and ethnic minority populations. We examined the research portfolio of the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) related to violent fatal injuries between 2009 and 2019 to focus on adolescents and young adults from NIH-designated populations experiencing health disparities and to identify trends and research gaps. We analyzed funded projects by populations covered, geographic location of the study population, type of research (etiology, intervention, methodology), type of determinants, and publications generated. In 10 years, NIH funded 17 grants that produced 90 publications. Researchers used socioecological frameworks most to study violent crime, except in rural locations. Research gaps include the direct impact of violent crime among those victimized and health care (the least studied determinant) and premature mortality disparities caused by hate crimes.

Dispersion of NIH Funding to Departments of Surgery is Contracting

INTRODUCTION

NIH funding to departments of surgery reported as benchmark Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research (BRIMR) rankings are unclear.

METHODS

We analyzed inflation-adjusted BRIMR-reported NIH funding to departments of surgery and medicine between 2011 and 2021.

RESULTS

NIH 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.

CONCLUSIONS

Although 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.

Endocrine surgery and the surgeon-scientist: Bridging the gap between a rich history and a bright future

INTRODUCTION

We evaluate National Institutes of Health (NIH) data to describe endocrine surgical research performed by surgeons in the United States.

METHODS

An internal NIH database was queried for endocrine surgery-related grants awarded to surgeons in 2010, 2015, and 2020. The grants were then compared based on cost, grant type, research type, and endocrine topic.

RESULTS

Eighteen grants ($6.4 M) focused on endocrine surgery-related research topics were identified in 2020, 17 ($7.3 M) in 2015, and 11 ($3.8 M) in 2010. In 2020, 14 grants were basic science and 4 were clinical outcomes, and pancreatic endocrine disease and thyroid disease each comprised 6 grants. R01 and R21 grants comprised 10 (55.6%) of the grants in 2020, compared to 10 (58.5%) in 2015 and 8 (72.7%) in 2010, while K08 and K23 grants increased to 4 (22.2%) in 2020 from 2 (11.8%) in 2015 and none in 2010.

CONCLUSION

There were more K-awards focused on endocrine surgery-related research in 2020 compared to 2015 and 2010, suggesting the pipeline is growing.

National Institutes of Health Diversity Supplement Awards by Medical School

BACKGROUND

Increasing medical school faculty diversity is an urgent priority. National Institutes of Health (NIH) diversity supplements, which provide funding and career development opportunities to individuals underrepresented in research, are an important mechanism to increase faculty diversity.

OBJECTIVE

Analyze diversity supplement utilization by medical schools.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS

All R01 grant-associated diversity supplements awarded to medical schools from 2005 to 2020. Diversity supplements were identified using the publicly available NIH RePORTER database.

MAIN MEASURES

Main measures were the number of R01-associated diversity supplements awarded to medical schools each year by medical school NIH funding status and the number of R01-associated diversity supplements awarded to individual medical schools in the NIH top 40 by funding status. We also examined the percentage of R01 grants with an associated diversity supplement by NIH funding status and individual medical school in the NIH top 40.

KEY RESULTS

From 2005 to 2020, US medical school faculty received 1389 R01-associated diversity supplements. The number of diversity supplements awarded grew from 2012 to 2020, from ten to 187 for top 40 schools, and from seven to 83 for non-top 40 schools. The annual growth rate for diversity supplement awards at NIH top 40 schools (44.2%) was not significantly different than the annual growth rate among non-top 40 schools (36.2%; p = 0.68). From 2005 to 2020, the highest number of diversity supplements that an individual medical school received was 56 and the lowest number was four (mean = 24.6, SD = 11.7). The highest percentage of R01 grants with an associated diversity supplement received by a school was 4.5% and the lowest percentage was 0.79% (mean = 2.3%, SD = 0.98).

CONCLUSION

Medical schools may be missing an opportunity to address the continuing shortage of individuals historically underrepresented in biomedical science and should consider additional mechanisms to enhance diversity supplement utilization.

Where are nurse-scientists? academic nursing research at critical crossroads

BACKGROUND

Academic nursing research is at a critical impasse after the great retirement and resignation during COVID-19. Sustaining and replenishing senior nurse-scientist faculty that are clinical experts with real-world clinical practice is critical. Leveraging the mission of nursing scholarship within the business of building and sustaining externally funded research enterprises in schools of nursing presents conundrums, especially with persistent nursing faculty vacancies.

PURPOSE AND METHODS

Through a lens of intersectionality within the context of academic bias and nursing education regulation, we address challenges in NIH funding for nurse-scientist faculty. Publicly available data reveal equity, inclusion, and advancement issues that make it an unequal playing field for nurse-scientist faculty if expected to achieve similar NIH funding as faculty in schools of public health and medicine.

DISCUSSION

Understanding research enterprises requires appreciation of the complex interplay between academic nursing units, university infrastructures, and academic budgetary models. Creative support for both nursing deans and their faculty is needed.

The Relative Contributions of NIH and Private Sector Funding to the Approval of New Biopharmaceuticals

OBJECTIVES

There remains ongoing debate regarding the relative efficacy of public (NIH) and private sector funding in bringing biopharmaceutical innovations to market. This paper investigates the significance of each party's level of funding for obtaining Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorization.

METHODS

A cohort of research projects linked to 23,230 National Institute of Health grants awarded in the year 2000 was audited to account for patents, where the project led to a product in clinical development and potentially FDA approval. A total of 8126 associated patents led to the identification of 41 therapies that registered clinical trials; 18 of these therapies received FDA approved.

RESULTS

NIH funding for the 18 FDA-approved therapies totaled $0.670 billion, whereas private sector funding (excluding post-approval funding) totaled $44.3 billion. A logistic regression relating the levels of public and private funding to the probability of FDA approval indicates a positive and significant relationship between private sector funding and the likelihood of FDA approval (p ≤ 0.0004). The relationship between public funding and the likelihood of FDA approval is found to be negative and not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Our study results underscore that the development of basic discoveries requires substantial additional investments, partnerships, and the shouldering of financial risk by the private sector if therapies are to materialize as FDA-approved medicine. Our finding of a potentially negative relationship between public funding and the likelihood that a therapy receives FDA approval requires additional study.

An evaluation of the National Institutes of Health grants portfolio: identifying opportunities and challenges for multi-omics research that leverage metabolomics data

BACKGROUND

Through the systematic large-scale profiling of metabolites, metabolomics provides a tool for biomarker discovery and improving disease monitoring, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment response, as well as for delineating disease mechanisms and etiology. As a downstream product of the genome and epigenome, transcriptome, and proteome activity, the metabolome can be considered as being the most proximal correlate to the phenotype. Integration of metabolomics data with other -omics data in multi-omics analyses has the potential to advance understanding of human disease development and treatment.

AIM OF REVIEW

To understand the current funding and potential research opportunities for when metabolomics is used in human multi-omics studies, we cross-sectionally evaluated National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded grants to examine the use of metabolomics data when collected with at least one other -omics data type. First, we aimed to determine what types of multi-omics studies included metabolomics data collection. Then, we looked at those multi-omics studies to examine how often grants employed an integrative analysis approach using metabolomics data.

KEY SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS OF REVIEW

We observed that the majority of NIH-funded multi-omics studies that include metabolomics data performed integration, but to a limited extent, with integration primarily incorporating only one other -omics data type. Some opportunities to improve data integration may include increasing confidence in metabolite identification, as well as addressing variability between -omics approach requirements and -omics data incompatibility.

Longitudinal analysis of National Institutes of Health funding for academic thoracic surgeons

OBJECTIVE

National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for academic (noncardiac) thoracic surgeons at the top-140 NIH-funded institutes in the United States was assessed. We hypothesized that thoracic surgeons have difficulty in obtaining NIH funding in a difficult funding climate.

METHODS

The top-140 NIH-funded institutes' faculty pages were searched for noncardiac thoracic surgeons. Surgeon data, including gender, academic rank, and postfellowship training were recorded. These surgeons were then queried in NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results for their funding history. Analysis of the resulting grants (1980-2019) included grant type, funding amount, project start/end dates, publications, and a citation-based Grant Impact Metric to evaluate productivity.

RESULTS

A total of 395 general thoracic surgeons were evaluated with 63 (16%) receiving NIH funding. These 63 surgeons received 136 grants totaling $228 million, resulting in 1772 publications, and generating more than 50,000 citations. Thoracic surgeons have obtained NIH funding at an increasing rate (1980-2019); however, they have a low percentage of R01 renewal (17.3%). NIH-funded thoracic surgeons were more likely to have a higher professorship level. Thoracic surgeons perform similarly to other physician-scientists in converting K-Awards into R01 funding.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to our hypothesis, thoracic surgeons have received more NIH funding over time. Thoracic surgeons are able to fill the roles of modern surgeon-scientists by obtaining NIH funding during an era of increasing clinical demands. The NIH should continue to support this mission.

Building an institutional K awardee program at UC Davis through utilization of CTSA resources

NIH offers multiple mentored career development award mechanisms. By building on the UC Davis Clinical and Translational Science Center (CTSC) from its initial NIH funding in 2006, we created an institution-wide K scholar resource. We investigated subsequent NIH funding for K scholars and to what extent CTSC research resources were used. Using NIH RePORTER, we created a database of UC Davis investigators who obtained K01, K08, K23, K25, or K99, as well as institutional KL2 or K12 awards and tracked CTSC research resource use and subsequent funding success. Overall, 94 scholars completed K training between 2007 and 2020, of which 70 participated in one of four institutional, NIH-funded K programs. An additional 103 scholars completed a mentored clinical research training program. Of 94 K awardees, 61 (65%) later achieved NIH funding, with the majority receiving a subsequent individual K award. A higher proportion (73%) of funded scholars used CTSC resources compared to unfunded (48%). Biostatistics and Biomedical Informatics were most commonly used and 55% of scholars used one or more CTSC resource. We conclude that institutional commitment to create a K scholar platform and use of CTSC research resources is associated with high NIH funding rates for early career investigators.

Ranking NIH Funding of Surgical Departments Based Upon a Modified Index

BACKGROUND

The Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research (BRIMR) reports a ranking of surgical department NIH funding each fiscal year based on more than 41,000 individual investigators. This report is used to measure the research productivity of the faculty or department. However, this method includes institutional grants awarded to Cancer Centers or Centers for Research, which do not reflect individual or departmental research. To measure the research productivity of a surgical department more directly, we created a modified BRIMR index excluding grants to cancer or research centers. We evaluated how our modified index of surgical departments compared to the rankings by BRIMR.

METHODS

Publicly available BRIMR data was filtered for all grants awarded to principal investigators in a surgical department within a medical school. All funding for Cancer Centers or Centers for Research was excluded. The remaining grants were totaled, producing a new ranking of surgical departments.

RESULTS

After excluding $42,761,752 in grants to Cancer Centers and Centers for Research, there was individual movement of 33 surgical departments on the ranking list. However, only four departments moved either up or down one quartile. No surgical department moved 2 or more quartiles.

CONCLUSIONS

NIH funding for Cancer Centers and Centers for Research comprised 10% of all NIH funding for medical school-associated surgical departments. Exclusion of this funding resulted in no significant change within surgical department quartile rankings. This suggests the BRIMR measure of research productivity does not need modification.

Machine Learning Applications in Nephrology: A Bibliometric Analysis Comparing Kidney Studies to Other Medicine Subspecialities

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVES

Artificial intelligence driven by machine learning algorithms is being increasingly employed for early detection, disease diagnosis, and clinical management. We explored the use of machine learning-driven advancements in kidney research compared with other organ-specific fields.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional bibliometric analysis.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

ISI Web of Science database was queried using specific Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms about the organ system, journal International Standard Serial Number, and research methodology. In parallel, we screened the National Institutes of Health (NIH) RePORTER website to explore funded grants that proposed the use of machine learning as a methodology.

PREDICTORS

Number of publications using machine learning as a research method.

OUTCOME

Articles were characterized by research methodology among 5 organ systems (brain, heart, kidney, liver, and lung). Grants funded by NIH for machine learning were characterized by study sections.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Percentages of articles using machine learning and other research methodologies were compared among 5 organ systems.

RESULTS

Machine learning-based articles that are focused on the kidney accounted for 3.2% of the total relevant articles from the 5 organ systems. Specifically, brain research published over 19-fold higher number of articles than kidney research. As compared with machine learning, conventional statistical approaches such as the Cox proportional hazard model were used 9-fold higher in articles related to kidney research. In general, a lower utilization of machine learning-based approaches was observed in organ-specific specialty journals than the broad interdisciplinary journals. The digestive disease, kidney, and urology study sections funded 122 applications proposing machine learning-based approaches compared to 265 applications from the neurology, neuropsychology, and neuropathology study sections.

LIMITATIONS

Observational study.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests lowest use of machine learning as a research tool among kidney researchers compared with other organ-specific researchers, underscoring a need to better inform the kidney research community about this emerging data analytic tool.

Factors associated with matching into research-focused dermatology residency programs

Although dermatology is one of the most competitive specialties to match into, there is limited transparency in the residency match process. In this retrospective cohort study of 2234 allopathic medical graduates, we identify applicant characteristics associated with matching into research oriented dermatology programs. Many of the statistically significant variables in our study, including PhD/MD status, graduating from a Top-25 NIH funded medical school, increasing total number of pre-residency publications (PRPs), and increasing number of high-impact PRPs, correlate with future academic employment. Although literature shows an association between an increasing number of first author PRPs and future academic employment, we did not find number of first or last author PRPs to be predictive of matching into a research oriented residency program. A more comprehensive evaluation of an applicant's research output, considering both the final products of an applicant's research endeavors and an applicant's role in various projects, may better approximate an applicant's commitment to academics.

NIH Funding of Researchers in Surgery: Decreased Career Development Awards Over Time

BACKGROUND

Over time, NIH funding has become increasingly competitive. In addition, academic surgeons' research competes with time required for patient care, operating, and administrative work. Due to these competing interests for surgeons, we hypothesize that the percentage of NIH grants awarded to researchers from departments of surgery is decreasing.

METHODS

The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool was queried for the number and value of new and renewal R01 grants, and career development awards noting which surgery departments received awards from 1998 to -2018. Statistical analysis was performed using univariate and multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

The number of career development awards granted to researchers from departments of surgery decreased significantly over time (P = 0.007) while new R01's and R01 renewal awards were stable. The number of grants awarded to researchers from all procedural departments were compared to non-procedural departments and again, career development awards decreased significantly (P = 0.005) over time but new R01's and R01 renewals stayed stable. Looking at the difference in average dollar amount received for new R01, renewal R01, or career development awards between department of surgery awardees and non-surgery over time, there was no significant difference.

CONCLUSIONS

NIH funding is becoming increasingly competitive and surgeons have many competing interests. Our study found that there has been a significant decrease in career development awards to department of surgery awardees and procedural specialists. The decrease in receipt of these awards is particularly concerning given that they are meant to provide protected time for developing researchers and thus have potential consequences for future research.

Sex Differences Remain Under-Reported in Cardiovascular Publications

Background: For the past two decades, there has been increased interest from medical journals and calls to action from various organizations such as the National Institutes of Health to study sex differences in cardiovascular (CV) disease. It is unknown whether this emphasis has translated to a growth in publications addressing sex differences in CV disease. Materials and Methods: We performed a bibliometric analysis of all CV publications from 2006 to 2015. The National Library of Medicine's PubMed database was searched for articles containing the phrases "cardiac," "cardiovascular" or "cardiology," in the first author affiliation field. This was followed by a subsequent search for publications containing any of the following phrases in the title and/or abstract: "woman," "women," "female," "females," "gender," or "sex." The presence of such terms defined the publication as sex-specific. Trends over time were analyzed for specified subgroups, including publication category and funding source. Results: A total of 189,543 CV publications were identified, out of which there were 24,615 (12.99%) sex-specific publications. For the 10-year period, there were no significant changes in the relative proportion of sex-specific publications. When specific publication categories were analyzed, there were significant proportional increase of sex-specific publications in general articles category, but not for reviews, clinical trials, meta-analysis, or letters. Conclusion: Despite calls for greater attention, only a small fraction of publications for the past decade have reported on sex differences. There was no significant proportional growth of sex-specific publications for a recent 10-year period, except for the general research articles.

NIH Portfolio of Unintentional Injury Research Among Racial and Ethnic Minority Children: Current Landscape and Future Opportunities

Unintentional injuries (UIs) caused by accidental suffocation, burns, drowning, falls, poisoning, and motor vehicle accidents are the leading causes of morbidity and mortality among children (Dellinger and Gilchrist. Am J Lifestyle Med; 2017). Notable racial and ethnic disparities exist in accidental suffocation among infants and in motor vehicle injuries (MVI) among youth. The purpose of this study is to examine the National Institutes of Health's funded research projects addressing UIs, using a socioecological framework, and to determine whether funded projects align with key priorities for unintentional injuries among racial and ethnic minorities as identified by the research community. Between 2011 and 2018, a total of 130 grants that examined UIs were identified, thirty-four of which focused on UI research among children. Of those 34 grants, eight focused on UIs among racial and ethnic minority children. The analyses suggest four areas of opportunities, where more research is needed to (1) prevent accidental suffocation among American Indians and Alaska Natives; (2) strengthen the role of the health care sector to prevent UIs; (3) promote the use of an integrative multilevel social ecological approach to characterize UIs and help shape interventions; and (4) promote the collection and dissemination of local injury-specific data to develop interventions in community settings. Identifying gaps and opportunities for reducing the health burden of UI among racial and ethnic minorities can inform prevention efforts and guide the development of interventions that target these populations.

Examining the Otolaryngology Match and Relationships Between Publications and Institutional Rankings

This study examines associations among publication number, National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding rank, medical school research rank, and otolaryngology department ranks of otolaryngology applicants during the 2018-2019 match cycle. Information regarding 2018-2019 otolaryngology applicants was collected from Otomatch.com and verified via department websites. Information was also collected regarding 2018 NIH funding rank and 2020 US News & World Report research rank of medical schools and otolaryngology departments. T tests and chi-square analyses were performed. Top 40 NIH funding rank, top 40 medical school research rank, and home institution department rank were separately associated with more publications and higher rates of matching into highly reputed otolaryngology departments (all P < .01). Furthermore, applicants who matched into ranked otolaryngology departments averaged significantly more publications (P < .01). Prospective otolaryngology applicants should take into account NIH funding rank, medical school research rank, and otolaryngology department rank, as they are associated with matching into high-ranking institutions.

Comprehensive National Institutes of Health funding analysis of academic cardiac surgeons

OBJECTIVE

To determine trends in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for cardiac surgeons, hypothesizing they are at a disadvantage in obtaining funding owing to intensive clinical demands.

METHODS

Cardiac surgeons (adult/congenital) currently at the top 141 NIH-funded institutions were identified using institutional websites. The NIH funding history for each cardiac surgeon was queried using the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER). Total grant funding, publications, and type was collected. Academic rank, secondary degrees, and fellowship information was collected from faculty pages. Grant productivity was calculated using a validated grant impact metric.

RESULTS

A total of 818 academic cardiac surgeons were identified, of whom 144 obtained 293 NIH grants totaling $458 million and resulting in 6694 publications. We identified strong associations between an institution's overall NIH funding rank and the number of cardiac surgeons, NIH grants to cardiac surgeons, and amount of NIH funding to cardiac surgeons (P < .0001 for all). The majority of NIH funding to cardiac surgeons is concentrated in the top quartile of institutions. Cardiac surgeons had a high conversion rates from K awards (mentored development awards) to R01s (6 of 14; 42.9%). Finally, we demonstrate that the rate of all NIH grants awarded to cardiac surgeons has increased, driven primarily by P and U (collaborative project) grants.

CONCLUSIONS

NIH-funded cardiac surgical research has had a significant impact over the last 3 decades. Aspiring cardiac surgeon-scientists may be more successful at top quartile institutions owing to better infrastructure and mentorship.

A review of 10 years of human microbiome research activities at the US National Institutes of Health, Fiscal Years 2007-2016

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the primary federal government agency for biomedical research in the USA. NIH provides extensive support for human microbiome research with 21 of 27 NIH Institutes and Centers (ICs) currently funding this area through their extramural research programs. This analysis of the NIH extramural portfolio in human microbiome research briefly reviews the early history of this field at NIH, summarizes the program objectives and the resources developed in the recently completed 10-year (fiscal years 2007-2016) $215 M Human Microbiome Project (HMP) program, evaluates the scope and range of the $728 M NIH investment in extramural human microbiome research activities outside of the HMP over fiscal years 2012-2016, and highlights some specific areas of research which emerged from this investment. This analysis closes with a few comments on the technical needs and knowledge gaps which remain for this field to be able to advance over the next decade and for the outcomes of this research to be able to progress to microbiome-based interventions for treating disease and supporting health.

NIH funding longevity by gender

Diversity of the biomedical workforce is essential to the scientific enterprise, yet women remain underrepresented in academic positions in biomedical sciences and compose less than one-third of National Institutes of Health (NIH) research grantees. We explored NIH grant support as a proxy for participation in academic research. We found that women had similar funding longevity as men after they received their first major NIH grants, contradicting the common assumption that across all career stages, women experience accelerated attrition compared with men. Despite longevity similarities, women composed only 31% of grantees in our analysis. This discrepancy in grantee demographics suggests that efforts may be best directed toward encouraging women to enter academia and supporting their continued grant submissions.

Women have achieved parity with men among biomedical science degree holders but remain underrepresented in academic positions. The National Institutes of Health (NIH)—the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research—receives less than one-third of its new grant applications from women. Correspondingly, women compose less than one-third of NIH research grantees, even though they are as successful as men in obtaining first-time grants. Our study examined women’s and men’s NIH funding trajectories over time (n = 34,770), exploring whether women remain funded at the same rate as men after receiving their first major research grants. A survival analysis demonstrated a slightly lower funding longevity for women. We next examined gender differences in application, review, and funding outcomes. Women individually held fewer grants, submitted fewer applications, and were less successful in renewing grants—factors that could lead to gender differences in funding longevity. Finally, two adjusted survival models that account for initial investigator characteristics or subsequent application behavior showed no gender differences, suggesting that the small observed longevity differences are affected by both sets of factors. Overall, given men’s and women’s generally comparable funding longevities, the data contradict the common assumption that women experience accelerated attrition compared with men across all career stages. Women’s likelihood of sustaining NIH funding may be better than commonly perceived. This suggests a need to explore women’s underrepresentation among initial NIH grantees, as well as their lower rates of new and renewal application submissions.

Contribution of NIH funding to new drug approvals 2010-2016

This work examines the contribution of NIH funding to published research associated with 210 new molecular entities (NMEs) approved by the Food and Drug Administration from 2010-2016. We identified >2 million publications in PubMed related to the 210 NMEs (n = 131,092) or their 151 known biological targets (n = 1,966,281). Of these, >600,000 (29%) were associated with NIH-funded projects in RePORTER. This funding included >200,000 fiscal years of NIH project support (1985-2016) and project costs >$100 billion (2000-2016), representing ∼20% of the NIH budget over this period. NIH funding contributed to every one of the NMEs approved from 2010-2016 and was focused primarily on the drug targets rather than on the NMEs themselves. There were 84 first-in-class products approved in this interval, associated with >$64 billion of NIH-funded projects. The percentage of fiscal years of project funding identified through target searches, but not drug searches, was greater for NMEs discovered through targeted screening than through phenotypic methods (95% versus 82%). For targeted NMEs, funding related to targets preceded funding related to the NMEs, consistent with the expectation that basic research provides validated targets for targeted screening. This analysis, which captures basic research on biological targets as well as applied research on NMEs, suggests that the NIH contribution to research associated with new drug approvals is greater than previously appreciated and highlights the risk of reducing federal funding for basic biomedical research.

Cardiothoracic surgery training grants provide protected research time vital to the development of academic surgeons

BACKGROUND

The Ruth L. Kirschstein Institutional National Research Service Award (T32) provides institutions with financial support to prepare trainees for careers in academic medicine. In 1990, the Cardiac Surgery Branch of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) was replaced by T32 training grants, which became crucial sources of funding for cardiothoracic (CT) surgical research. We hypothesized that T32 grants would be valuable for CT surgery training and yield significant publications and subsequent funding.

METHODS

Data on all trainees (past and present) supported by CT T32 grants at two institutions were obtained (T32), along with information on trainees from two similarly sized programs without CT T32 funding (Non-T32). Data collected were publicly available and included publications, funding, degrees, fellowships, and academic rank. Non-surgery residents and residents who did not pursue CT surgery were excluded.

RESULTS

Out of 76 T32 trainees and 294 Non-T32 trainees, data on 62 current trainees or current CT surgeons (T32: 42 vs Control: 20) were included. Trainees who were supported by a CT T32 grant were more likely to pursue CT surgery after residency (T32: 40% [30/76] vs Non-T32: 7% [20/294], P < .0001), publish manuscripts during residency years (P < .0001), obtain subsequent NIH funding (T32: 33% [7/21] vs Non-T32: 5% [1/20], P = .02), and pursue advanced fellowships (T32: 41% [9/22] vs Non-T32: 10% [2/20], P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

T32 training grants supporting CT surgery research are vital to develop academic surgeons. These results support continued funding by the NHLBI to effectively develop and train the next generation of academic CT surgeons.

Allergen immunotherapy: exploring areas for further inquiry

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSION

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.

National Institutes of Health Funding in Rhode Island

OBJECTIVES

We present an overview of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding in Rhode Island through analysis of 935 NIH grants received during the fiscal years of 2012 to 2016.

RESULTS

NIH funded over 2,600 grants from 2012 to 2016, of which approximately 900 were new grant awards, and the remainder were annual grant renewals. The most funded type of research in Rhode Island is mental health and substance abuse, followed by infectious disease, neurology, and public health. Research funding of cardiovascular diseases, on a per capita basis, are on par with the rest of the nation, while cancer research funding is less than one half the national average. The largest NIH institutional funding source is the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), followed by National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). While research grants (R01s) remain the predominant source of NIH funding, investigators in Rhode Island have secured additional funding through program project (P) grants with the aim of bolstering research resources and collaboration throughout the state. [Full article available at http://rimed.org/rimedicaljournal-2017-07.asp].

Recent Trends in Oral Cavity Cancer Research Support in the United States

The objectives were to characterize oral cavity cancer (OCC) funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) with a secondary aim of comparing NIH support provided to OCC and other malignancies. NIH awards supporting OCC inquiry from 2000 to 2014 were accessed from the NIH RePORTER database. These data were used to evaluate temporal trends and the role of human papilloma virus and to determine the academic training and professional profiles of the principal investigators. Comparison of 2014 funding levels with other malignancies was also performed, controlling for incidence. Overall funding totals decreased considerably after 2009. Funding administered through the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) was 6.5 times greater than dollars awarded by the National Cancer Institute in 2000. During the period evaluated, NIDCR support decreased in most years, while National Cancer Institute support increased and approached NIDCR funding levels. Funding for human papilloma virus-related projects gradually rose, from 3.4% of dollars in 2000 to 2004 to 6.2% from 2010 to 2014 ( P < 0.05). A majority of principal investigators had a PhD omnia solus (57%), and 13% possessed dual PhD/clinical degrees. Among clinicians with specialty training, otolaryngologists and oral/maxillofacial pathologists garnered the most funding. OCC had a 2014 funding:incidence ratio of $785, much lower than for other malignancies. There has been increased volatility in funding support in recent years possibly due to budget cuts and sequestration. The National Cancer Institute has played an increasingly important role in supporting OCC research, concomitant with decreasing NIDCR support. Our findings suggest that OCC is underfunded relative to other non-oral cavity malignancies, indicating a need to increase the focus on rectifying the disparity.

Are Female Applicants Disadvantaged in National Institutes of Health Peer Review? Combining Algorithmic Text Mining and Qualitative Methods to Detect Evaluative Differences in R01 Reviewers' Critiques

BACKGROUND

Women are less successful than men in renewing R01 grants from the National Institutes of Health. Continuing to probe text mining as a tool to identify gender bias in peer review, we used algorithmic text mining and qualitative analysis to examine a sample of critiques from men's and women's R01 renewal applications previously analyzed by counting and comparing word categories.

METHODS

We analyzed 241 critiques from 79 Summary Statements for 51 R01 renewals awarded to 45 investigators (64% male, 89% white, 80% PhD) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison between 2010 and 2014. We used latent Dirichlet allocation to discover evaluative "topics" (i.e., words that co-occur with high probability). We then qualitatively examined the context in which evaluative words occurred for male and female investigators. We also examined sex differences in assigned scores controlling for investigator productivity.

RESULTS

Text analysis results showed that male investigators were described as "leaders" and "pioneers" in their "fields," with "highly innovative" and "highly significant research." By comparison, female investigators were characterized as having "expertise" and working in "excellent" environments. Applications from men received significantly better priority, approach, and significance scores, which could not be accounted for by differences in productivity.

CONCLUSIONS

Results confirm our previous analyses suggesting that gender stereotypes operate in R01 grant peer review. Reviewers may more easily view male than female investigators as scientific leaders with significant and innovative research, and score their applications more competitively. Such implicit bias may contribute to sex differences in award rates for R01 renewals.

The positive association of Association for Academic Surgery membership with academic productivity

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the academic productivity and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding of members of the Association for Academic Surgery (AAS).

METHODS

Academic metrics including, numbers of publications, citations, and NIH funding history were determined for 4015 surgical faculty at the top 55 NIH-funded departments of surgery, using Scopus, NIH RePORT, and the Grantome online databases.

RESULTS

AAS membership included 20.5% (824) of all 4015 surgical faculty in this database. For members of the AAS, publications (P) ± standard deviation and citations (C) ± SD were P: 54 ± 96 and C: 985 ± 3321, compared with P: 31 ± 92, C: 528 ± 3001 for nonmembers, P < 0.001. Higher academic productivity among AAS members was observed across all subspecialty types and was especially pronounced for assistant and associate professors. AAS membership was also associated with increased rates of NIH funding and better productivity for equally funded surgical faculty compared with nonmembers. Analysis of AAS membership by subspecialty revealed that AAS members were most commonly general surgery faculty (57.8%); however, only 7.4% of the faculty was affiliated with cardiothoracic surgery. There was also a lack of dedicated science and/or research faculty (0.6% versus 3.4%) among the members of the AAS.

CONCLUSIONS

AAS membership appears to be correlated with greater academic performance among junior and midlevel surgical faculty. This improvement is observed regardless of subspecialty. Increased participation of faculty within subspecialties such as cardiothoracic surgery and, a greater focus on increasing the numbers of dedicated research faculty within the AAS may help increase the scientific impact and productivity among members of the society.

The role of chairman and research director in influencing scholarly productivity and research funding in academic orthopaedic surgery

The purpose of this study was to determine what orthopaedic surgery department leadership characteristics are most closely correlated with securing NIH funding and increasing scholarly productivity. Scopus database was used to identify number of publications/h-index for 4,328 faculty, department chairs (DC), and research directors (RD), listed on departmental websites from 138 academic orthopaedic departments in the United States. NIH funding data was obtained for the 2013 fiscal year. While all programs had a DC, only 46% had a RD. Of $54,925,833 in NIH funding allocated to orthopaedic surgery faculty in 2013, 3% of faculty and 31% of departments were funded. 16% of funded institutions had a funded DC whereas 65% had a funded RD. Department productivity and funding were highly correlated to leadership productivity and funding(p< 0.05). Mean funding was $1,700,000 for departments with a NIH-funded RD, $104,000 for departments with an unfunded RD, and $72,000 for departments with no RD. These findings suggest that orthopaedic department academic success is directly associated with scholarly productivity and funding of both DC and RD. The findings further highlight the correlation between a funded RD and a well-funded department. This does not hold for an unfunded RD.

Engineering behaviour change in an epidemic: the epistemology of NIH-funded HIV prevention science

Social scientific and public health literature on National Institutes of Health-funded HIV behavioural prevention science often assumes that this body of work has a strong biomedical epistemological orientation. We explore this assumption by conducting a systematic content analysis of all NIH-funded HIV behavioural prevention grants for men who have sex with men between 1989 and 2012. We find that while intervention research strongly favours a biomedical orientation, research into the antecedents of HIV risk practices favours a sociological, interpretive and structural orientation. Thus, with respect to NIH-funded HIV prevention science, there exists a major disjunct in the guiding epistemological orientations of how scientists understand HIV risk, on the one hand, and how they engineer behaviour change in behavioural interventions, on the other. Building on the extant literature, we suggest that the cause of this disjunct is probably attributable not to an NIH-wide positivist orientation, but to the specific standards of evidence used to adjudicate HIV intervention grant awards, including randomised controlled trials and other quantitative measures of intervention efficacy.

Gender differences in successful National Institutes of Health funding in ophthalmology

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether gender differences in individual National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards and in funding totals exist in ophthalmology, and to further characterize whether factors such as experience, academic rank, and terminal degree play a role.

DESIGN

A retrospective review of awards granted to primary investigators (PIs) in ophthalmology departments from 2011 through the present was conducted. PIs were classified by gender, degree, experience, and academic position. The NIH funding database was used to gather award data.

SETTING

Academic medical center.

RESULTS

Men had higher mean NIH awards ($418,605) than their female colleagues ($353,170; p = 0.005) and had higher total funding per PI (p = 0.004). Men had statistically higher awards at the level of assistant professor than their female counterparts (p < 0.05). A gender difference was statistically significant and most marked among researchers holding an MD (or equivalent) degree. When controlled for publication experience, men had higher NIH awards throughout their careers, although this difference only reached statistical significance on comparison of faculty with 10 or fewer years of experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Male PIs receiving grants since 2011 had higher awards than their female colleagues did, most markedly among PIs in the earlier portions of their career. Differences in gender representation among senior faculty and in positions of leadership in academic ophthalmology may be partially a result of disparities in research output, as scholarly productivity is an important component of the academic advancement process in ophthalmology.

Gender differences in successful NIH grant funding in otolaryngology

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate gender differences in NIH funding among faculty in otolaryngology departments and discuss potential reasons for these differences.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Analysis of NIH funding data available on the online NIH RePORTER system.

METHODS

Fiscal year 2011 and 2012 NIH funding awards to principal investigators (PIs) in otolaryngology departments were obtained and used to examine faculty listings from otolaryngology departments for academic rank and gender. The Scopus database was used to determine publication range of these faculty members.

RESULTS

Individual mean NIH awards to men ($362,946 ± $21,247 standard error of mean) were higher than those to women ($287,188 ± $38,029). Male PIs were found to have higher mean NIH funding totals (aggregating grants for PIs with multiple awards) than female PIs ($498,593 vs $359,276). Upon organization by academic rank and years active, men had significantly higher funding levels at both the level of assistant professor and at 10 to 20 years of experience. Of all NIH grants awarded, men had a higher percentage of the more prestigious R-series grants (76.2%) than did women (63.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Male faculty members have higher NIH funding levels than their female colleagues, a disparity that exists separate from career longevity, as it is true both at the rank of assistant professor and for those with 10 to 20 years of research experience. The larger proportion of R-series NIH grants awarded to male faculty may contribute to this finding. This discrepancy in percentage and dollars of funding exists despite the increasing percentages of women in higher ranks.