The National Institutes of Health funding for clinical research applying machine learning techniques in 2017.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Annapureddy AR
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6994580 | biostudies-literature | 2020
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The National Institutes of Health funding for clinical research applying machine learning techniques in 2017.
Annapureddy Amarnath R AR Angraal Suveen S Caraballo Cesar C Grimshaw Alyssa A Huang Chenxi C Mortazavi Bobak J BJ Krumholz Harlan M HM
NPJ digital medicine 20200131
Machine learning (ML) techniques have become ubiquitous and indispensable for solving intricate problems in most disciplines. To determine the extent of funding for clinical research projects applying ML techniques by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2017, we searched the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER) system using relevant keywords. We identified 535 projects, which together received a total of $264 million, accounting for 2% of the N ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Previous reports have described worsening inequalities of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. We analyzed Research Project Grant data through the end of Fiscal Year 2020, confirming worsening inequalities beginning at the time of the NIH budget doubling (1998-2003), while finding that trends in recent years have reversed for both investigators and institutions, but only to a modest degree. We also find that career-stage trends have stabilized, with equivalent proportions of early-, mid-, and late-career investigators funded from 2017 to 2020. The fraction of women among funded PIs continues to increase, but they are still not at parity. Analyses of funding inequalities show that inequalities for investigators, and to a lesser degree for institutions, have consistently been greater within groups (i.e. within groups by career stage, gender, race, and degree) than between groups.
| S-EPMC8448532 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe US has historically resettled more refugees than any other country, with over 3.5 million refugees since 1980. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest public funder of biomedical research and development, but its role in mitigating many health disparities refugees experience through its funded research remains unknown.ObjectiveTo examine the NIH's research funding patterns on refugee health research over the last 2 decades.Design, setting, and participantsSecondary analysis of NIH-funded grants between 2000 and 2020 using a cross-sectional study design. The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools database was used to find relevant grants. Data were analyzed from November 2021 to September 2022.Main outcomes and measuresNIH grants awarded by year, state, grant type, research area, funding institute, grant duration, and amount funded.ResultsOf 1.7 million NIH grants funded over the 20-year study period, only 78 addressed refugee health. Funded grants were mostly training grants (23 grants [29%]), followed by hypothesis-driven research (R01 grants; 22 grants [28%]), pilot or preliminary investigation proposals (13 grants [17%]), and other types of grants (20 grants [26%]). The most studied research domain was mental health (36 grants [46%]), followed by refugee family dynamics and women's and children's health (14 grants [18%]). A total of 26 grants (33%) were funded by the National Institute of Mental Health and 15 (19%) were funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Most grants were US-based (60 grants [76%]) and the state of Massachusetts received the greatest amount of funding ($14 825 852 [18%]). In 2020, the NIH allocated about $2.3 million to refugee health research, or less than 0.01% of its $42 billion budget that year. The number of grants funded in each time period did not always reflect changes in the number of refugees resettled in the US over the years.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study found that there remain significant gaps in the understanding of and interventions in the health research needs of refugees locally and along the migratory route. To close these gaps, the NIH should increase its investments in comprehensive studies assessing the physical, mental, and social well-being of this expanding population. This can be achieved by ensuring that all NIH institutes allocate budgets specifically for refugee health research and extend support for the training of refugee researchers.
| S-EPMC10782235 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealth research provides a means to define health status and to identify ways to improve health. Our objective was to define the proportion of grants and funding from the Government of Canada's health research investment agency, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), that was awarded for prison health research, and to describe the characteristics of funded grants.MethodsIn this descriptive study, we defined prison health research as research on the health and health care of people in prisons and at the time of their release. We searched the CIHR Funding Decisions Database by subject and by investigator name for funded grants for prison health research in Canada in all competitions between 2010 and 2014. We calculated the proportion of grants and funding awarded for prison health research, and described the characteristics of funded grants.ResultsDuring the 5-year study period, 21 grants were awarded that included a focus on prison health research, for a total of $2 289 948. Six of these grants were operating grants and 6 supported graduate or fellowship training. In total, 0.13% of all grants and 0.05% of all funding was for prison health research.InterpretationA relatively small proportion of CIHR grants and funding were awarded for prison health research between 2010 and 2014. If prison health is a priority for Canada, strategic initiatives that include funding opportunities could be developed to support prison health research in Canada.
| S-EPMC5378501 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionConduct bibliometric analyses documenting the output of National Institutes of Health (NIH) tobacco-related and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tobacco regulatory science (FDA-TRS) research portfolios.Aims and methodsPubMed identifiers for publications between 2015 and 2020 citing tobacco funding by NIH and/or FDA were imported into NIH iCite generating measures of productivity and influence, including number of citations, journal, relative citation ratios (RCR), and comparison of research influence across Web of Science (WoS) disciplines. Coauthorship and measures of centrality among and between NIH and FDA-supported investigators gauged collaboration.ResultsBetween FY 2015 and 2020, 8160 publications cited funding from NIH tobacco-related grants, 1776 cited FDA-TRS grants and 496 cited Common funding (ie, both NIH and FDA-TRS funding). The proportion of publications citing NIH grants declined while those citing FDA-TRS or Common funding rose significantly. Publications citing Common funding showed the highest influence (mean RCR = 2.52). Publications citing FDA-TRS funding displayed higher median RCRs than publications citing NIH funding in most WoS categories. Higher translational progress was estimated over time for FDA-TRS and Common publications compared to NIH publications. Authors citing Common funding scored highest across all collaboration measures.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates the high bibliometric output of tobacco research overall. The rise in publications citing FDA-TRS and Common likely reflects increased funding for TRS research. Higher RCRs across WoS subject categories and trends towards human translation among FDA-TRS and Common publications indicate focus on research to inform regulation. This analysis suggests that FDA support for TRS has expanded the field of tobacco control resulting in sustained productivity, influence, and collaboration.ImplicationsThis paper is the first effort to better describe the impact of tobacco research resulting from the addition of FDA funding for TRS in the past decade. The analysis provides impetus for further investigation into the publication topics and their focus which would offer insight into the specific evidence generated on tobacco control and regulation.
| S-EPMC10202643 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:The study objective was to describe and compare changes in newly funded National Institutes of Health (NIH) tobacco-related awards between fiscal year (FY) 2006 and FY2016. DESIGN:Secondary analysis of NIH data. SETTING:National Institutes of Health Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool database was used. SUBJECTS:National Institutes of Health tobacco-related awards newly funded during FY2006 and FY2016. MEASURES:Search terms included tobacco, smoking, nicotine, secondhand smoke, and e-cigarettes. Grants and funding amounts were retrieved. ANALYSIS:We calculated frequency distributions to determine the number and percentage of total NIH grants funded overall and by specific institute, and inflation-adjusted total and median funding amounts. We computed percentage differences in number of new grants, funding amounts, and percentage of funding allocated overall, and by institute. RESULTS:There was a 187% increase in the percentage of total NIH funding allocated to new tobacco-related awards from 0.09% in FY2006 to 0.25% in FY2016. Total number of awards increased by 67% in FY2016 (n = 144; $56 015 931) compared to FY2006 (n = 86; $22 076 987), and there was a 154% increase in inflation-adjusted total funding for tobacco control. The top funding institutes were National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Cancer Institute; National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism was third in FY2006; and National, Heart, Lung and Blood Institute in FY2016. Research grants were the most frequently funded. Smoking cessation was a common topic area and increased by 64%. CONCLUSION:NIH funding is critical for advancing the science of nicotine and tobacco research.
| S-EPMC6026566 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo 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.MethodsCardiac 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsNIH-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.
| S-EPMC7546359 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEvaluating 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsA 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 relevanceEvaluating 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.
| S-EPMC10965119 | biostudies-literature
Project description:One in 5 Americans experiences disability that affects daily function because of impairments in mobility, impairments in cognitive function, sensory impairment, or communication impairment. The need for rehabilitation strategies to optimize function and reduce disability is a clear priority for research to address this public health challenge. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) recently published a Research Plan on Rehabilitation that provides a set of priorities to guide the field over the next 5 years. The plan was developed with input from multiple institutes and centers within the NIH, the National Advisory Board for Medical Rehabilitation Research, and the public. This article provides an overview of the need for this research plan, an outline of its development, and a listing of six priority areas for research.
| S-EPMC5397097 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of this study is to compare the compositions of federally funded surgical research between 2003 and 2013, and to assess differences in funding trends between surgery and other medical specialties.The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool database was queried for grants within core surgical disciplines during 2003 and 2013. Funding was categorized by award type, methodology, and discipline. Application success rates for surgery and 5 nonsurgical departments were trended over time.Inflation-adjusted NIH funding for surgical research decreased 19% from $270 M in 2003 to $219 M in 2013, with a shift from R-awards to U-awards. Proportional funding to outcomes research almost tripled, while translational research diminished. Nonsurgical departments have increased NIH application volume over the last 10 years; however, surgery's application volume has been stagnant. To preserve surgery's role in innovative research, new efforts are needed to incentivize an increase in application volume.
| S-EPMC4446185 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Gender bias has been an ongoing issue in health care, examples being underrepresentation of women in health studies, trivialization of women's physical complaints, and discrimination in the awarding of research grants. We examine here a different issue-gender disparity when it comes to the allocation of research funding among diseases. Materials and Methods: We perform an analysis of funding by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) to ascertain possible gender disparity in its allocation of funds across diseases. We normalize funding level to disease burden, as measured by the Disability Adjusted Life Year, and we specifically consider diseases for which both disease burden and funding level are provided. We apply a power-law regression analysis to model funding commensurate with disease burden. Results: We find that in nearly three-quarters of the cases where a disease afflicts primarily one gender, the funding pattern favors males, in that either the disease affects more women and is underfunded (with respect to burden), or the disease affects more men and is overfunded. Moreover, the disparity between actual funding and that which is commensurate with burden is nearly twice as large for diseases that favor males versus those that favor females. A chi-square test yields a p-value of 0.015, suggesting that our conclusions are representative of the full NIH disease portfolio. Conclusions: NIH applies a disproportionate share of its resources to diseases that affect primarily men, at the expense of those that affect primarily women.
| S-EPMC8290307 | biostudies-literature