Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Bases de datos
País/Región como asunto
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Ann Surg ; 273(6): 1042-1048, 2021 06 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33914482

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to evaluate the relationship between surgeon representation on NIH study sections and success in grant funding. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: NIH funding for surgeon-scientists is declining. Prior work has called for increased surgeon participation in the grant review process as a strategy to increase receipt of funding by surgeon-scientists. METHODS: A retrospective review of surgeon (primary department: General, Urology, Orthopedic, Ophthalmology, Otolaryngology, Neurosurgery) representation on NIH study sections and receipt of funding was performed using NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER) and 2019 Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research data. NIH chartered study section panels and ad hoc reviewers for each 2019 review date were also obtained. RESULTS: In 2019, 9239 individuals reviewed in at least 1 of the 168 study sections [190 (2.1%) surgeons, 64 (0.7%) standing members, 126 (1.4%) ad-hoc]. Most surgeons on study sections were male (65%) professors (63%). Surgeons most commonly served on bioengineering, technology, and surgical sciences (29.6% surgeons), diseases and pathophysiology of the visual system (28.3%), and surgery, anesthesiology and trauma (21%). In 2019, 773 surgeons received 1235 NIH grants (>$580 M) out of a total of 55,012 awards (2.2%). Funded surgeons were predominantly male (79%), White (68%), non-Hispanic (97%), full professors (50%), and 43% had additional advanced degrees (MPH/PhD/MBA). surgery, anesthesiology and trauma, diseases and pathophysiology of the visual system, and bioengineering, technology, and surgical sciences were the most common study sections that reviewed funded grants to surgeon-scientists. Ninety-two surgeons both received grant funding and served on study section. Study sections with higher surgeon representation were more likely to fund surgeon-scientists (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Surgeon representation on NIH study sections is strongly associated with receipt of funding by surgeon-scientists. Increasing NIH study section representation by surgeons may help to preserve the surgeon-scientist phenotype.


Asunto(s)
Distinciones y Premios , Investigación Biomédica/economía , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economía , Especialidades Quirúrgicas/economía , Estudios Retrospectivos , Estados Unidos
2.
JCI Insight ; 5(18)2020 09 17.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32796155

RESUMEN

Evaluation of potential immunity against the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus that emerged in 2019 (SARS-CoV-2) is essential for health, as well as social and economic recovery. Generation of antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 (seroconversion) may inform on acquired immunity from prior exposure, and antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor binding domain (S-RBD) are speculated to neutralize virus infection. Some serology assays rely solely on SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein (N-protein) as the antibody detection antigen; however, whether such immune responses correlate with S-RBD response and COVID-19 immunity remains unknown. Here, we generated a quantitative serological ELISA using recombinant S-RBD and N-protein for the detection of circulating antibodies in 138 serial serum samples from 30 reverse transcription PCR-confirmed, SARS-CoV-2-hospitalized patients, as well as 464 healthy and non-COVID-19 serum samples that were collected between June 2017 and June 2020. Quantitative detection of IgG antibodies against the 2 different viral proteins showed a moderate correlation. Antibodies against N-protein were detected at a rate of 3.6% in healthy and non-COVID-19 sera collected during the pandemic in 2020, whereas 1.9% of these sera were positive for S-RBD. Approximately 86% of individuals positive for S-RBD-binding antibodies exhibited neutralizing capacity, but only 74% of N-protein-positive individuals exhibited neutralizing capacity. Collectively, our studies show that detection of N-protein-binding antibodies does not always correlate with presence of S-RBD-neutralizing antibodies and caution against the extensive use of N-protein-based serology testing for determination of potential COVID-19 immunity.


Asunto(s)
Anticuerpos Neutralizantes , Anticuerpos Antivirales , Betacoronavirus/fisiología , Infecciones por Coronavirus , Nucleocápside/inmunología , Pandemias , Neumonía Viral , Glicoproteína de la Espiga del Coronavirus/inmunología , Inmunidad Adaptativa/inmunología , Anticuerpos Neutralizantes/análisis , Anticuerpos Neutralizantes/inmunología , Anticuerpos Antivirales/análisis , Anticuerpos Antivirales/sangre , Betacoronavirus/aislamiento & purificación , COVID-19 , Prueba de COVID-19 , Técnicas de Laboratorio Clínico/métodos , Infecciones por Coronavirus/diagnóstico , Infecciones por Coronavirus/inmunología , Infecciones por Coronavirus/terapia , Infecciones por Coronavirus/virología , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud , Neumonía Viral/inmunología , Neumonía Viral/terapia , Neumonía Viral/virología , Unión Proteica , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , Seroconversión , Pruebas Serológicas/métodos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA