Dataset Information

Biomedical and health research: an analysis of country participation and research fields in the EU's Horizon 2020.

ABSTRACT: We analysed the Horizon 2020 project database, currently the European Union's (EU) largest framework programme for research and innovation-nearly 80 billion euros available over 7 years (2014-2020), to estimate the amount and type of EU-supported biomedical and health research and funding distribution among EU member states and non-European countries. Out of 20,877 projects as of 14th January 2019, a total of 4865 projects were classified as human health related. Ninety-four countries/territories worldwide participated in at least one biomedical project. The EU-15 original member states showed the highest participation as project leaders/partners and for acquired funding. Strong unequal funding distribution and participation between EU-15 and the 13 newest members-with EU-15 receiving about 87% of funding and EU-13 only 3%-have been evidenced. For both EU-15 and EU-13 we detected about 20% of projects involving the public and private sectors, according to Horizon 2020 guidelines. The largest percentage of projects was in the areas of biotechnological research (28.28%) and "basic research" (26.95%); these two sectors together accounted for 46.99% of the total funding assigned (7.9 billion euros). Research in neurosciences and neurological diseases appeared to be an increasing study area. Neurological and mental diseases covered about 21% of projects. Epidemiological studies accounted for about 5% of the total projects and for 14% of funding. Strong correlations were shown by indicators of financial and scientific capacity to identify success rates in obtaining EU funding, making the gap between countries with strong and weak research infrastructures difficult to overcome.

SUBMITTER: Gallo F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7671576 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Biomedical and health research: an analysis of country participation and research fields in the EU's Horizon 2020.

Gallo Federica F Seniori Costantini Adele A Puglisi Maria Teresa MT Barton Nigel N

European journal of epidemiology 20201117 12

We analysed the Horizon 2020 project database, currently the European Union's (EU) largest framework programme for research and innovation-nearly 80 billion euros available over 7 years (2014-2020), to estimate the amount and type of EU-supported biomedical and health research and funding distribution among EU member states and non-European countries. Out of 20,877 projects as of 14th January 2019, a total of 4865 projects were classified as human health related. Ninety-four countries/territorie ...[more]

PMID: 33205246

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceDespite the rapid growth of interest and diversity in applications of artificial intelligence (AI) to biomedical research, there are limited objective ways to characterize the potential for use of AI in clinical practice.ObjectiveTo examine what types of medical AI have the greatest estimated translational impact (ie, ability to lead to development that has measurable value for human health) potential.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cohort study, research grants related to AI awarded between January 1, 1985, and December 31, 2020, were identified from a National Institutes of Health (NIH) award database. The text content for each award was entered into a Natural Language Processing (NLP) clustering algorithm. An NIH database was also used to extract citation data, including the number of citations and approximate potential to translate (APT) score for published articles associated with the granted awards to create proxies for translatability.ExposuresUnsupervised assignment of AI-related research awards to application topics using NLP.Main outcomes and measuresAnnualized citations per $1 million funding (ACOF) and average APT score for award-associated articles, grouped by application topic. The APT score is a machine-learning based metric created by the NIH Office of Portfolio Analysis that quantifies the likelihood of future citation by a clinical article.ResultsA total of 16 629 NIH awards related to AI were included in the analysis, and 75 applications of AI were identified. Total annual funding for AI grew from $17.4 million in 1985 to $1.43 billion in 2020. By average APT, interpersonal communication technologies (0.488; 95% CI, 0.472-0.504) and population genetics (0.463; 95% CI, 0.453-0.472) had the highest translatability; environmental health (ACOF, 1038) and applications focused on the electronic health record (ACOF, 489) also had high translatability. The category of applications related to biochemical analysis was found to have low translatability by both metrics (average APT, 0.393; 95% CI, 0.388-0.398; ACOF, 246).Conclusions and relevanceBased on this study's findings, data on grants from the NIH can apparently be used to identify and characterize medical applications of AI to understand changes in academic productivity, funding support, and potential for translational impact. This method may be extended to characterize other research domains.

Project description:ObjectiveScientific authorship is a vital marker of achievement in academic careers and gender equity is a key performance metric in research. However, there is little understanding of gender equity in publications in biomedical research centres funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). This study assesses the gender parity in scientific authorship of biomedical research.DesignDescriptive, cross-sectional, retrospective bibliometric study.SettingNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC).DataData comprised 2409 publications that were either accepted or published between April 2012 and March 2017. The publications were classified as basic science studies, clinical studies (both trial and non-trial studies) and other studies (comments, editorials, systematic reviews, reviews, opinions, book chapters, meeting reports, guidelines and protocols).Main outcome measuresGender of authors, defined as a binary variable comprising either male or female categories, in six authorship categories: first author, joint first authors, first corresponding author, joint corresponding authors, last author and joint last authors.ResultsPublications comprised 39% clinical research (n=939), 27% basic research (n=643) and 34% other types of research (n=827). The proportion of female authors as first author (41%), first corresponding authors (34%) and last author (23%) was statistically significantly lower than male authors in these authorship categories (p<0.001). Of total joint first authors (n=458), joint corresponding authors (n=169) and joint last authors (n=229), female only authors comprised statistically significant (p<0.001) smaller proportions, that is, 15% (n=69), 29% (n=49) and 10% (n=23) respectively, compared with male only authors in these joint authorship categories. There was a statistically significant association between gender of the last author with gender of the first author (p<0.001), first corresponding author (p<0.001) and joint last author (p<0.001). The mean journal impact factor (JIF) was statistically significantly higher when the first corresponding author was male compared with female (Mean JIF: 10.00 vs 8.77, p=0.020); however, the JIF was not statistically different when there were male and female authors as first authors and last authors.ConclusionsAlthough the proportion of female authors is significantly lower than the proportion of male authors in all six categories of authorship analysed, the proportions of male and female last authors are comparable to their respective proportions as principal investigators in the BRC. These findings suggest positive trends and the NIHR Oxford BRC doing very well in gender parity in the senior (last) authorship category. Male corresponding authors are more likely to publish articles in prestigious journals with high impact factor while both male and female authors at first and last authorship positions publish articles in equally prestigious journals.

Project description:The Natura 2000 network is regarded as one of the conservation success stories in the global effort to protect biodiversity. However, significant challenges remain in Natura 2000 implementation, owing to its rapid expansion, and lack of a coherent vision for its future. Scientific research is critical for identifying conservation priorities, setting management goals, and reconciling biodiversity protection and society in the complex political European landscape. Thus, there is an urgent need for a comprehensive evaluation of published Natura 2000 research to highlight prevalent research themes, disciplinary approaches, and spatial entities. We conducted a systematic review of 572 scientific articles and conference proceedings focused on Natura 2000 research, published between 1996 and 2014. We grouped these articles into 'ecological' and 'social and policy' categories. Using a novel application of network analysis of article keywords, we found that Natura 2000 research forms a cohesive small-world network, owing to the emphasis on ecological research (79% of studies, with a strong focus on spatial conservation planning), and the underrepresentation of studies addressing 'social and policy' issues (typically focused on environmental impact assessment, multi-level governance, agri-environment policy, and ecosystem services valuation). 'Ecological' and 'social and policy' research shared only general concepts (e.g., Natura 2000, Habitats Directive) suggesting a disconnection between these disciplines. The UK and the Mediterranean basin countries dominated Natura 2000 research, and there was a weak correlation between number of studies and proportion of national territory protected. Approximately 40% of 'social and policy' research and 26% of 'ecological' studies highlighted negative implications of Natura 2000, while 21% of studies found positive social and biodiversity effects. We emphasize the need for designing inter- and transdisciplinary research in order to promote a social-ecological understanding of Natura 2000, and advance EU conservation policies.

Project description:Jordan was the first Arab country to enact clinical research regulations. The country has a well-flourished pharmaceutical industry that leans heavily on clinical research (CR) for drug development and post-marketing surveillance. In this cross-sectional study, we sought to assess the public's awareness and attitude towards CR as well as their perceived motivators and barriers to CR participation. A population-based, self-administered questionnaire was distributed to the general public in Jordan. Among the 1061 participants in this survey, 74% reported being aware of CR. The majority (70%) agreed to the role of CR in health promotion. Online information and healthcare staff were the two main sources of CR information for the participants. About 25% of the participants received prior invitations to participate in CR with 21% agreeing to participate. However, most participants of the current study (63%) were willing to participate in future CR. Contributing to science, benefiting others, and promoting one's own health were the top motivating factors for participating in CR; while time constraints, fear of research procedure, and lack of interest were the most cited reasons for rejecting participation. Filling out questionnaire surveys, donating blood samples, and participating in physical examinations were the main CR contributions of the participants. Nearly 31% of the participants believed that CR is conducted in a responsible and ethical manner, while 57% did not have an opinion regarding the same matter. In addition, 49% and 44% were neutral with regards to the degree of harm and confidentiality posed by CR. While only 27% disagreed that CR exposes participants to some form of harm, 48% either strongly agreed (15%) or agreed (33%) that it maintains high level of confidentiality for participants. The current study provides insight into the public's perception of CR in Jordan as well as its motivating factors and perceived barriers towards participating in CR. We envisage to utilize this insight as an aid in the design of vigilant future awareness campaigns and recruitment strategies.

Dataset Information

Biomedical and health research: an analysis of country participation and research fields in the EU's Horizon 2020.

Publications

Biomedical and health research: an analysis of country participation and research fields in the EU's Horizon 2020.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets