Transition From Mentored to Independent NIH Funding by Gender and Department.

This study uses National Institutes of Health RePORTER data for mentored K awards and R01-equivalent grants to all departments in US schools of medicine to characterize K-award distribution and K-to-R transition by gender and department between 1997 and 2021.

Basic principles of biobanking: from biological samples to precision medicine for patients.

The term "biobanking" is often misapplied to any collection of human biological materials (biospecimens) regardless of requirements related to ethical and legal issues or the standardization of different processes involved in tissue collection. A proper definition of biobanks is large collections of biospecimens linked to relevant personal and health information (health records, family history, lifestyle, genetic information) that are held predominantly for use in health and medical research. In addition, the International Organization for Standardization, in illustrating the requirements for biobanking (ISO 20387:2018), stresses the concept of biobanks being legal entities driving the process of acquisition and storage together with some or all of the activities related to collection, preparation, preservation, testing, analysing and distributing defined biological material as well as related information and data. In this review article, we aim to discuss the basic principles of biobanking, spanning from definitions to classification systems, standardization processes and documents, sustainability and ethical and legal requirements. We also deal with emerging specimens that are currently being generated and shaping the so-called next-generation biobanking, and we provide pragmatic examples of cancer-associated biobanking by discussing the process behind the construction of a biobank and the infrastructures supporting the implementation of biobanking in scientific research.

Examining "race" in physiology.

Racial disparities in cardiovascular and cerebrovascular health outcomes are well described, and recent research has shed light on the mechanistic underpinnings of those disparities. However, "race" is a social construct that is poorly defined and continually evolving and is historically based on faulty premises. The continued categorization by race in physiological research suggests that there are inherent differences between races, rather than addressing the specific underlying factors that result in health disparities between groups. The purpose of this Perspectives article is to provide a brief history of the genesis of categorization by race, why such categorization should be reconsidered in physiology research, and offer recommendations to more directly investigate the underlying factors that result in group disparities in cardiovascular and cerebrovascular health.

Productivity of CNPq Researchers from Different Fields in Biomedical Sciences: The Need for Objective Bibliometric Parameters-A Report from Brazil.

In Brazil, the CNPq (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development) provides grants, funds and fellowships to productive scientists to support their investigations. They are ranked and categorized into four hierarchical levels ranging from PQ 1A (the highest) to PQ 1D (the lowest). Few studies, however, report and analyse scientific productivity in different sub-fields of Biomedical Sciences (BS), e.g., Biochemistry, Pharmacology, Biophysics and Physiology. In fact, systematic comparisons of productivity among the PQ 1 categories within the above sub-fields are lacking in the literature. Here, the scientific productivity of 323 investigators receiving PQ 1 fellowships (A to D levels) in these sub-fields of BS was investigated. The Scopus database was used to compile the total number of articles, citations, h-index values and authorship positions (first-, co- or last-listed author) in the most cited papers by researchers granted CNPq fellowships. We found that researchers from Pharmacology had the best performance for all of the parameters analysed, followed by those in Biochemistry. There was great variability in scientific productivity within the PQ 1A level in all of the sub-fields of BS, but not within the other levels (1B, 1C and 1D). Analysis of the most cited papers of PQ 1(A-D) researchers in Pharmacology revealed that the citations of researchers in the 1C and 1D levels were associated with publications with their senior supervisors, whereas those in the 1B level were less connected with their supervisors in comparison to those in 1A. Taken together, these findings suggest that the scientific performance of PQ 1A researchers in BS is not homogenous. In our opinion, parameters such as the most cited papers without the involvement of Ph.D. and/or post-doctoral supervisors should be used to make decisions regarding any given researcher's fellowship award level.

Indicators of Evaluating Research at Article Level: Recommendation for Effective Evaluation of APJCP' Scientific Performances

Today, research is seen as an investment to promote innovation and maintain sustainable social-economic development in all societies. The growth of scientific products and the expansion of knowledge in different scientific fields have entailed more attention to assessments and the impact evaluation of both outcome and process of researchers in all fields. In light of this need, policymakers in the medical field have paid more attention to evaluating the outcomes of research in terms of its impact on the society using many different indicators. In this short communication, the performance of scholarly published scientific products are discussed and the indicators that measure such impacts are evaluated and recommendation is given to APJCP' editorial board on how to align its activities toward achieving better impact and scientometric measures for the journal.

Article-level assessment of influence and translation in biomedical research.

Given the vast scale of the modern scientific enterprise, it can be difficult for scientists to make judgments about the work of others through careful analysis of the entirety of the relevant literature. This has led to a reliance on metrics that are mathematically flawed and insufficiently diverse to account for the variety of ways in which investigators contribute to scientific progress. An urgent, critical first step in solving this problem is replacing the Journal Impact Factor with an article-level alternative. The Relative Citation Ratio (RCR), a metric that was designed to serve in that capacity, measures the influence of each publication on its respective area of research. RCR can serve as one component of a multifaceted metric that provides an effective data-driven supplement to expert opinion. Developing validated methods that quantify scientific progress can help to optimize the management of research investments and accelerate the acquisition of knowledge that improves human health.

United Kingdom health research analyses and the benefits of shared data.

BACKGROUND: To allow research organisations to co-ordinate activity to the benefit of national and international funding strategies requires assessment of the funding landscape; this, in turn, relies on a consistent approach for comparing expenditure on research. Here, we discuss the impact and benefits of the United Kingdom's Health Research Classification System (HRCS) in national landscaping analysis of health research and the pros and cons of performing large-scale funding analyses. METHODS: The first United Kingdom health research analysis (2004/2005) brought together the 11 largest public and charity funders of health research to develop the HRCS and use this categorisation to examine United Kingdom health research. The analysis was revisited in 2009/2010 and again in 2014. The most recent quinquennial analysis in 2014 compiled data from 64 United Kingdom research organisations, accounting for 91% of all public/charitable health research funding in the United Kingdom. The three analyses summarise the United Kingdom's health research expenditure in 2004/2005, 2009/2010 and 2014, and can be used to identify changes in research activity and disease focus over this 10 year period. RESULTS: The 2004/2005 analysis provided a baseline for future reporting and evidence for a United Kingdom Government review that recommended the co-ordination of United Kingdom health research should be strengthened to accelerate the translation of basic research into clinical and economic benefits. Through the second and third analyses, we observed strategic prioritisation of certain health research activities and disease areas, with a strong trend toward increased funding for more translational research, and increases in specific areas such as research on prevention. CONCLUSIONS: The use of HRCS in the United Kingdom to analyse the research landscape has provided benefit both to individual participatory funders and in coordinating initiatives at a national level. A modest amount of data for each project is sufficient for a nationwide assessment of health research funding, but achieving coverage of the United Kingdom portfolio relies on sourcing these details from a large number of individual funding agencies. The effort needed to compile this data could be minimised if funders routinely shared or published this information in a standard and accessible way. The United Kingdom approach to landscaping analyses could be readily adapted to suit other groups or nations, and global availability of research funding data would support better national and international coordination of health research.

[Same words, different meanings: How epidemiological terminology struggles with population health intervention research]. / À mêmes mots, sens différents--les difficultés de la terminologie épidémiologique avec la recherche en interventions en santé des populations.

Public health research differs from clinical epidemiological research in that its focus is primarily on the population level social and structural determinants of individual health and the interventions that might ameliorate them, rather than having a primary focus on individual-level risks. It is typically concerned with the proximal and distal causes of health problems, and their location within complex systems, more than with single exposures. Thus, epidemiological terms and concepts may have very different implications when used in the context of population health. This paper considers some key differences in relation to terms like 'population', 'baseline', 'control group' 'outcome' and 'adverse effects'. Even the concept of an 'intervention' often needs careful handling. The paper concludes that there is a need for an expanded, and more realistic use of these terms in the population health intervention research context.

An assessment of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for non-communicable diseases (NCDs): more and higher quality research is required in less developed countries.

Research is crucial to implement evidence-based health interventions for control of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). This study aims to assess main features of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for control of NCDs, and to identify gaps in clinical research on NCDs between high-income and less developed countries. The study included 1177 RCTs in 82 Cochrane Systematic reviews (CSRs) and evaluated interventions for adults with hypertension, diabetes, stroke, or heart diseases. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to explore factors associated with risk of bias in included RCTs. We found that 78.2% of RCTs of interventions for major NCDs recruited patients in high-income countries. The number of RCTs included in the CSRs was increasing over time, and the increasing speed was more noticeable for RCTs conducted in middle-income countries. RCTs conducted in less developed countries tended to be more recently published, less likely to be published in English, with smaller sample sizes, and at a higher risk of bias. In conclusion, there is still a lack of research evidence for control of NCDs in less developed countries. To brace for rising NCDs and avoid waste of scarce research resources, not only more but also higher quality clinical trials are required in low-and-middle-income countries.

Evaluation of medical research performance--position paper of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF).

OBJECTIVE: The evaluation of medical research performance is a key prerequisite for the systematic advancement of medical faculties, research foci, academic departments, and individual scientists' careers. However, it is often based on vaguely defined aims and questionable methods and can thereby lead to unwanted regulatory effects. The current paper aims at defining the position of German academic medicine toward the aims, methods, and consequences of its evaluation. METHODS: During the Berlin Forum of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF) held on 18 October 2013, international experts presented data on methods for evaluating medical research performance. Subsequent discussions among representatives of relevant scientific organizations and within three ad-hoc writing groups led to a first draft of this article. Further discussions within the AWMF Committee for Evaluation of Performance in Research and Teaching and the AWMF Executive Board resulted in the final consented version presented here. RESULTS: The AWMF recommends modifications to the current system of evaluating medical research performance. Evaluations should follow clearly defined and communicated aims and consist of both summative and formative components. Informed peer reviews are valuable but feasible in longer time intervals only. They can be complemented by objective indicators. However, the Journal Impact Factor is not an appropriate measure for evaluating individual publications or their authors. The scientific "impact" rather requires multidimensional evaluation. Indicators of potential relevance in this context may include, e.g., normalized citation rates of scientific publications, other forms of reception by the scientific community and the public, and activities in scientific organizations, research synthesis and science communication. In addition, differentiated recommendations are made for evaluating the acquisition of third-party funds and the promotion of junior scientists. CONCLUSIONS: With the explicit recommendations presented in the current position paper, the AWMF suggests enhancements to the practice of evaluating medical research performance by faculties, ministries and research funding organizations.

An analysis of subject areas and country participation for all health-related projects in the EU's FP5 and FP6 programmes.

BACKGROUND: Previous analyses concerning health components of European Union (EU)-funded research have shown low project participation levels of the 12 newest member states (EU-12). Additionally, there has been a lack of subject-area analysis. In the Health Research for Europe project, we screened all projects of the EU's Framework Programmes for research FP5 and FP6 (1998-2006) to identify health research projects and describe participation by country and subject area. METHODS: FP5 and FP6 project databases were acquired and screened by coders to identify health-related projects, which were then categorized according to the 47 divisions of the EU Health Portal (N = 2728 projects) plus an extra group of 'basic/biotech' projects (N = 1743). Country participation and coordination rates for projects were also analyzed. RESULTS: Approximately 20% of the 26 946 projects (value €29.2bn) were health-related (N = 4756. Value €6.04bn). Within the health categories, the largest expenditures were cancer (11.9%), 'other' (i.e. not mental health or cardiovascular) non-communicable diseases (9.5%) and food safety (9.4%). One hundred thirty-two countries participated in these projects. Of the 27 EU countries (and five partner countries), north-western and Nordic states acquired more projects per capita. The UK led coordination with > 20% of projects. EU-12 countries were generally under-represented for participation and coordination. CONCLUSIONS: Combining our findings with the associated literature, we comment on drivers determining distribution of participation and funds across countries and subject areas. Additionally, we discuss changes needed in the core EU projects database to provide greater transparency, data exploitation and return on investment in health research.

Evaluation of the literature: evidence assessment tools for clinicians.

The progressive improvement in the quality of scientific articles has led to an increase in difficulty in reading and interpreting them so that now clinical knowledge and experience must be complemented by methodological, statistical and computer skills. The aim of this article is to offer practitioners the tools, the simplest keys, that will allow them to understand and critically judge the results of scientific studies. The "peer-review" process of a clinical article submitted to a journal is described and the Science Citation Index and the Impact Factor are presented to the reader as essential instruments to evaluate a specific article's impact and the impact of a given journal on the scientific world, respectively. An article should be evaluated on the basis of some key issues which include, at least, an assessment of methodological aspects, a critical analysis of the statistical component and a proper understanding of the clinical impact of the study outcomes. The standard approach for evaluating the quality of individual studies is based on a hierarchical grading system of research design which represents an essential tool to identify the strength of the evidence of an article. Many different biases may affect the reliability of study results. Randomized Control Trials (RCTs) and Systematic Reviews (SRs) are able to minimize the number of biases and thus are at the highest level of the scale of evidence representing the final steps of a treatment's "career." Finally, moving from research to clinical practice, attention on the clinical impact of study's outcomes is of paramount importance as the literature contains studies (including RCTs) that present statistically significant results but which, from the clinical standpoint, are only relatively or not at all significant. Clinical Practice Guidelines represent a useful tool for practitioners assisting the decision-making process when choosing the most appropriate treatment for their patients.

Climate change, human health, and biomedical research: analysis of the National Institutes of Health research portfolio.

BACKGROUND: According to a wide variety of analyses and projections, the potential effects of global climate change on human health are large and diverse. The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), through its basic, clinical, and population research portfolio of grants, has been increasing efforts to understand how the complex interrelationships among humans, ecosystems, climate, climate variability, and climate change affect domestic and global health. OBJECTIVES: In this commentary we present a systematic review and categorization of the fiscal year (FY) 2008 NIH climate and health research portfolio. METHODS: A list of candidate climate and health projects funded from FY 2008 budget appropriations were identified and characterized based on their relevance to climate change and health and based on climate pathway, health impact, study type, and objective. RESULTS: This analysis identified seven FY 2008 projects focused on climate change, 85 climate-related projects, and 706 projects that focused on disease areas associated with climate change but did not study those associations. Of the nearly 53,000 awards that NIH made in 2008, approximately 0.17% focused on or were related to climate. CONCLUSIONS: Given the nature and scale of the potential effects of climate change on human health and the degree of uncertainty that we have about these effects, we think that it is helpful for the NIH to engage in open discussions with science and policy communities about government-wide needs and opportunities in climate and health, and about how NIH's strengths in human health research can contribute to understanding the health implications of global climate change. This internal review has been used to inform more recent initiatives by the NIH in climate and health.

Assessment of research quality in major infertility journals.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the level of evidence published in infertility journals with the highest impact factors. DESIGN: Systematic review. We searched in PubMed identifying potential systematic reviews with meta-analysis (SRs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) between 2006 and 2010 in the five fertility journals with highest impact factor. SETTING: Academic institution. PATIENT(S): None. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE(S): Number and proportion of potential SRs and RCTs published in 2006-2011, and quality assessment of real RCTs published in 2010. RESULT(S): Among evaluated articles, 1.5% and 6.8% were SRs and RCTs. Fertility and Sterility has been the journal with more potential SRs and RCTs, and Human Reproduction Update was the only one with an increasing trend in the number of potential SRs (from 5.3% in 2006 to 24.4% in 2011). Among confirmed RCTs, for each quality assessment item, between 50% and 85% were classified as having low risk of bias, and the most common high risk of bias was related to allocation concealment. Only 23% had a trial registration, which were associated with higher quality assessment classifications. Only 10% of RCTs reported pharmaceutical industry funding. CONCLUSION(S): This is the first study assessing the methodologic quality of publications in the top five fertility journals. More than 90% of all the publications were neither SRs nor RCTs. It is remarkable that the risk of bias was generally low. Enhancing trial registration and funding source statements represent opportunities to improve the quality of reporting. We hope this information is useful to researchers, editorial boards, and clinicians moving forward with research in our field.

Using ontology-based annotation to profile disease research.

BACKGROUND: Profiling the allocation and trend of research activity is of interest to funding agencies, administrators, and researchers. However, the lack of a common classification system hinders the comprehensive and systematic profiling of research activities. This study introduces ontology-based annotation as a method to overcome this difficulty. Analyzing over a decade of funding data and publication data, the trends of disease research are profiled across topics, across institutions, and over time. RESULTS: This study introduces and explores the notions of research sponsorship and allocation and shows that leaders of research activity can be identified within specific disease areas of interest, such as those with high mortality or high sponsorship. The funding profiles of disease topics readily cluster themselves in agreement with the ontology hierarchy and closely mirror the funding agency priorities. Finally, four temporal trends are identified among research topics. CONCLUSIONS: This work utilizes disease ontology (DO)-based annotation to profile effectively the landscape of biomedical research activity. By using DO in this manner a use-case driven mechanism is also proposed to evaluate the utility of classification hierarchies.