National Institutes of Health Funding Among Society of Asian Academic Surgery Members.

INTRODUCTION: External funding is fundamental to surgeon-scientists and many Society of Asian Academic Surgeons (SAAS) members have received funding through National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants. The amount of funding through NIH awards amongst SAAS members has yet to be evaluated. Our objective was to quantify the amount and type of NIH funding among SAAS members. METHODS: A list of all active SAAS members was compiled. The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool's Expenditure and Results was queried to identify NIH funding among active members. RESULTS: Among 585 active SAAS members, 165 (28%) received NIH funding during their career. Of these, 110 members (66.6%) were male and 55 members (33.3%) were female. A total of 420 NIH grants have been awarded totaling $518.7 million in funding. There are currently 47 active grants totaling $34.1 million in funding. When analyzing by type, there were 226 R research grants, 63 K career development awards, 53 T and F research training and fellowships awards, and 78 other awards. Of the 63 members who received a K award, 35 members (55%) have subsequently received an R award. CONCLUSIONS: SAAS members are highly funded with 28% of members having received NIH funding totaling $518.7 million. SAAS' mission is to foster the personal and professional development of academic surgeons and we found that many SAAS members have the experience to mentor other surgeon-scientists through the process of obtaining NIH funding. Participation in organizations like SAAS can help nurture the success of future generations of surgeon-scientists.

K-Means clustering of dermatology journals: comparing the distribution of "free-to-publish" and "pay-to-publish" models.

This study investigates the impact of Free-to-Publish (F2P) versus Pay-to-Publish (P2P) models in dermatology journals, focusing on their differences in terms of journal metrics, Article Processing Charges (APCs), and Open Access (OA) status. Utilizing k-means clustering, the research evaluates dermatology journals based on SCImago Journal Rankings (SJR), H-Index, and Impact Factor (IF), and examines the correlation between these metrics, APCs, and OA status (Full or Hybrid). Data from the SCImago Journal Rank and Journal Citation Report databases were used, and metrics from 106 journals were normalized and grouped into three tiers.The study reveals a higher proportion of F2P journals, especially in higher-tier journals, indicating a preference for quality-driven research acceptance. Conversely, a rising proportion of P2P journals in lower tiers suggests potential bias towards the ability to pay. This disparity poses challenges for researchers from less-funded institutions or those early in their careers. The study also finds significant differences in APCs between F2P and P2P journals, with hybrid OA being more common in F2P.Conclusively, the study highlights the disparities in dermatology journals between F2P and P2P models and underscores the need for further research into authorship demographics and institutional affiliations in these journals. It also establishes the effectiveness of k-means clustering as a standardized method for assessing journal quality, which can reduce reliance on potentially biased individual metrics.

Federal and foundational research funding trends for cerebrovascular neurosurgeons: the decline of the cerebrovascular surgeon-scientist?

OBJECTIVE: The number of cerebrovascular (CV) surgeons has grown with the rise of endovascular neurosurgery. However, it is unclear whether the number of CV surgeon-scientists has concomitantly increased. With increasing numbers of CV neurosurgeons in the US workforce, the authors analyzed associated changes in National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Neurosurgery Research and Education Foundation (NREF) funding trends for CV surgeons over time. METHODS: Publicly available data were collected on currently practicing academic CV surgeons in the US. Inflation-adjusted NIH funding between 2009 and 2021 was surveyed using NIH RePORTER and Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research data. The K12 Neurosurgeon Research Career Development Program and NREF grant data were queried for CV-focused grants. Pearson R correlation, chi-square analysis, and the Mann-Whitney U-test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: From 2009 to 2021, NIH funding increased: in total (p = 0.0318), to neurosurgeons (p < 0.0001), to CV research projects (p < 0.0001), and to CV surgeons (p = 0.0018). During this time period, there has been an increase in the total number of CV surgeons (p < 0.0001), the number of NIH-funded CV surgeons (p = 0.0034), and the percentage of CV surgeons with NIH funding (p = 0.370). Additionally, active NIH grant dollars per CV surgeon (p = 0.0398) and the number of NIH grants per CV surgeon (p = 0.4257) have increased. Nevertheless, CV surgeons have been awarded a decreasing proportion of the overall pool of neurosurgeon-awarded NIH grants during this time period (p = 0.3095). In addition, there has been a significant decrease in the number of K08, K12, and K23 career development awards granted to CV surgeons during this time period (p = 0.0024). There was also a significant decline in the proportion of K12 (p = 0.0044) and downtrend in early-career NREF (p = 0.8978) grant applications and grants awarded during this time period. Finally, NIH-funded CV surgeons were more likely to have completed residency less recently (p = 0.001) and less likely to have completed an endovascular fellowship (p = 0.044) as compared with non-NIH-funded CV surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: The number of CV surgeons is increasing over time. While there has been a concomitant increase in the number of NIH-funded CV surgeons and the number of NIH grants awarded per CV surgeon in the past 12 years, there has also been a significant decrease in CV surgeons with K08, K12, and K23 career development awards and a downtrend in CV-focused K12 and early-career NREF applications and awarded grants. The latter findings suggest that the pipeline for future NIH-funded CV surgeons may be in decline.

The pediatric surgeon-scientist: An evolving Breed or endangered phenotype?

INTRODUCTION: National Institute of Health (NIH) funding is a "gold-standard" of achievement; we examined trends in NIH-funded pediatric surgeons. METHODS: NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT) was queried for American Pediatric Surgical Association (APSA) members (2012 vs 2022). Demographics and time-to-award (TTA) from fellowship were compared. Number of grants, funding allotment, award classification, administering institutes/centers, research type were studied. RESULTS: Thirty-eight (4.6%) APSA members were NIH-funded in 2012 compared to 37 (2.9%) in 2022. Of funded surgeons in 2022, 27% were repeat awardees from 2012. TTA was similar (12 vs 14years, p=0.109). At each point, awards were commonly R01 grants (40 vs 52%, p â€‹= â€‹0.087) and basic science-related (76 vs 63%, p = â€‹0.179). Awardees were predominantly men (82% in 2012 vs 78% in 2022, p=0.779) and White (82% in 2012 vs 76% in 2022, p=0.586). Median amount per grant increased: $254,980 (2012) to $364,025 (2022); by $96,711 for men and $390,911 for women. Median awards for White surgeons increased by $215,699 (p=0.035), and decreased by $30,074 for non-White surgeons, though not significantly (p=0.368). CONCLUSION: The landscape of NIH-funded pediatric surgeons has remained unchanged between time points. With a substantial number of repeat awardees, predominance of R01 grants, and a median TTA over a decade after fellowship graduation, the phenotypes of early career pediatric surgeon-scientists are facing academic endangerment.

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

Background: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) mobilized more than $4 billion in extramural funding for the COVID-19 pandemic. Assessing the research output from this effort is crucial to understanding how the scientific community leveraged federal funding and responded to this public health crisis. Methods: NIH-funded COVID-19 grants awarded between January 2020 and December 2021 were identified from NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results using the "COVID-19 Response" filter. PubMed identifications of publications under these grants were collected and the NIH iCite tool was used to determine citation counts and focus (eg, clinical, animal). iCite and the NIH's LitCOVID database were used to identify publications directly related to COVID-19. Publication titles and Medical Subject Heading terms were used as inputs to a machine learning-based model built to identify common topics/themes within the publications. Results and Conclusions: We evaluated 2401 grants that resulted in 14 654 publications. The majority of these papers were published in peer-reviewed journals, though 483 were published to preprint servers. In total, 2764 (19%) papers were directly related to COVID-19 and generated 252 029 citations. These papers were mostly clinically focused (62%), followed by cell/molecular (32%), and animal focused (6%). Roughly 60% of preprint publications were cell/molecular-focused, compared with 26% of nonpreprint publications. The machine learning-based model identified the top 3 research topics to be clinical trials and outcomes research (8.5% of papers), coronavirus-related heart and lung damage (7.3%), and COVID-19 transmission/epidemiology (7.2%). This study provides key insights regarding how researchers leveraged federal funding to study the COVID-19 pandemic during its initial phase.

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, 134:3786-3794, 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.

National Institutes of Health funding among vascular surgeons is rare.

BACKGROUND: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is an essential source of funding for vascular surgeons conducting research. NIH funding is frequently used to benchmark institutional and individual research productivity, help determine eligibility for academic promotion, and as a measure of scientific quality. We sought to appraise the current scope of NIH funding to vascular surgeons by appraising the characteristics of NIH-funded investigators and projects. In addition, we also sought to determine whether funded grants addressed recent Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) research priorities. METHODS: In April 2022, we queried the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER) database for active projects. We only included projects that had a vascular surgeon as a principal investigator. Grant characteristics were extracted from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results database. Principal investigator demographics and academic background information were identified by searching institution profiles. RESULTS: There were 55 active NIH awards given to 41 vascular surgeons. Only 1% (41/4037) of all vascular surgeons in the United States receive NIH funding. Funded vascular surgeons are an average of 16.3 years out of training; 37% (n = 15) are women. The majority of awards (58%; n = 32) were R01 grants. Among the active NIH-funded projects, 75% (n = 41) are basic or translational research projects, and 25% (n = 14) are clinical or health services research projects. Abdominal aortic aneurysm and peripheral arterial disease are the most commonly funded disease areas and together accounted for 54% (n = 30) of projects. Three SVS research priorities are not addressed by any of the current NIH-funded projects. CONCLUSIONS: NIH funding of vascular surgeons is rare and predominantly consists of basic or translational science projects focused on abdominal aortic aneurysm and peripheral arterial disease research. Women are well-represented among funded vascular surgeons. Although the majority of SVS research priorities receive NIH funding, three SVS research priorities are yet to be addressed by NIH-funded projects. Future efforts should focus on increasing the number of vascular surgeons receiving NIH grants and ensuring all SVS research priorities receive NIH funding.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Does Research Training lead to Academic Success in Orthopedic Surgery? An Analysis of U.S Academic Orthopedic Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Academic surgeons are invaluable for scientific advancement and training the next generation of orthopedic surgeons. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe a cohort of academic orthopedic surgeons currently in practice with common academic metrics. METHODS: ACGME-accredited orthopedic surgery programs with a university affiliation were identified. The primary independent variable in this study was formal research training as defined by a research fellowship or attainment of a PhD. Outcomes included academic rank, h-index attained, number of publications, and funding by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). RESULTS: 1641 orthopedic surgeons were identified across 73 programs. 116 surgeons (7.07%) received formal academic research training. The academic training group and non-academic training group had a similar completion rate of clinical fellowship programs (93.97% vs 93.77%, p=0.933), attainment of other advanced degrees (10.34% vs 8.46%, p=0.485), and years since completion of training (17.49-years vs 16.28-years, p=0.284). Surgeons completing academic research training had a significantly higher h-index (18.46 vs 10.88, p<0.001), higher publication number (67.98 vs 37.80, p<0.001), and more likely to be NIH funded (16.38% vs 3.15%, p<0.001). Surgeons completing academic training were more likely to be associate professors (34.48% vs 25.77%), professors (25.00% vs 22.82%), and endowed professors (10.34% vs 2.43%) (p<0.001). On regression analysis, formalized research training was independently associated with h-index and NIH funding (p<0.001 for both). CONCLUSION: Formalized research training, either as a research fellowship or PhD, is associated with an increased h-index and likelihood of NIH funding, although this association was not found for academic rank after adjusted regression analysis.

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.

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.