Dataset Information

NIH peer review: Criterion scores completely account for racial disparities in overall impact scores.

ABSTRACT: Previous research has found that funding disparities are driven by applications' final impact scores and that only a portion of the black/white funding gap can be explained by bibliometrics and topic choice. Using National Institutes of Health R01 applications for council years 2014-2016, we examine assigned reviewers' preliminary overall impact and criterion scores to evaluate whether racial disparities in impact scores can be explained by application and applicant characteristics. We hypothesize that differences in commensuration-the process of combining criterion scores into overall impact scores-disadvantage black applicants. Using multilevel models and matching on key variables including career stage, gender, and area of science, we find little evidence for racial disparities emerging in the process of combining preliminary criterion scores into preliminary overall impact scores. Instead, preliminary criterion scores fully account for racial disparities-yet do not explain all of the variability-in preliminary overall impact scores.

SUBMITTER: Erosheva EA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7269672 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

NIH peer review: Criterion scores completely account for racial disparities in overall impact scores.

Erosheva Elena A EA Grant Sheridan S Chen Mei-Ching MC Lindner Mark D MD Nakamura Richard K RK Lee Carole J CJ

Science advances 20200603 23

Previous research has found that funding disparities are driven by applications' final impact scores and that only a portion of the black/white funding gap can be explained by bibliometrics and topic choice. Using National Institutes of Health R01 applications for council years 2014-2016, we examine assigned reviewers' preliminary overall impact and criterion scores to evaluate whether racial disparities in impact scores can be explained by application and applicant characteristics. We hypothesi ...[more]

PMID: 32537494

Similar Datasets

Project description:We examined the overall survival of a population-based cohort of black and white patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) to better understand the paradox of poorer RCC survival despite more frequent diagnosis at lower stage among blacks. Renal cell carcinoma patients (699 white, 252 black) diagnosed between 2002 and 2007 in metropolitan Detroit were followed for vital status in the Detroit Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry. Hazard ratios (HR) of death for black versus white race and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using Cox proportional hazard models stratified by demographic and prognostic factors, and in models successively adjusted for clinical factors, comorbidities, and socioeconomic factors. Mean follow-up time was 88.4 months for white patients and 89.6 months for black patients (P = 0.49), with 202 white deaths and 89 black deaths (P = 0.06). While black race was weakly associated with poorer overall survival (P = 0.053), black patients <65 years at diagnosis or with tumors <4 cm in size had significantly poorer survival than their white counterparts (HR = 1.46, 95% CI 1.06-2.01 and HR = 2.15, 95% CI 1.51-3.06, respectively). The racial disparities within these two subgroups were minimally affected by adjustment for clinical/treatment factors (HR = 1.49, 95% CI 1.01-2.19 and HR = 1.95, 95% CI 1.27-2.99), but were substantially reduced when renal-relevant comorbidities were added (HR = 1.30, 95% CI 0.89-1.91 and HR = 1.76, 95% CI 1.16-2.66). After further adjustment for socioeconomic factors, the survival disparities were essentially null (HR = 1.14, 95% CI 0.71-1.85 and HR = 1.15, 95% CI 0.67-1.98). In this population-based sample of RCC patients, younger black patients and those with small tumors had poorer overall survival than whites. The disparity was explained primarily by racial differences in renal-relevant comorbidities, particularly chronic renal failure, and socioeconomic deprivation. Future research should focus on younger patients and those with smaller tumors to better understand how these factors may contribute to the survival disparity.

Dataset Information

NIH peer review: Criterion scores completely account for racial disparities in overall impact scores.

Publications

NIH peer review: Criterion scores completely account for racial disparities in overall impact scores.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets