Postdoctoral National Institutes of Health F32 Grants: Broken Pipeline in the Development of Surgeon-Scientists.

OBJECTIVE: We examined trainees in surgery and internal medicine who received National Institutes of Health (NIH) F32 postdoctoral awards to determine their success rates in obtaining future NIH funding. BACKGROUND: Trainees participate in dedicated research years during residency (surgery) and fellowship (internal medicine). They can obtain an NIH F32 grant to fund their research time and have structured mentorship. METHODS: We collected NIH F32 grants (1992-2021) for Surgery Departments and Internal Medicine Departments from NIH RePORTER, an online database of NIH grants. Nonsurgeons and noninternal medicine physicians were excluded. We collected demographic information on each recipient, including gender, current specialty, leadership positions, graduate degrees, and any future NIH grants they received. A Mann-Whitney U test was used for continuous variables, and a χ 2 test was utilized to analyze categorical variables. An alpha value of 0.05 was used to determine significance. RESULTS: We identified 269 surgeons and 735 internal medicine trainees who received F32 grants. A total of 48 surgeons (17.8%) and 339 internal medicine trainees (50.2%) received future NIH funding ( P < 0.0001). Similarly, 24 surgeons (8.9%) and 145 internal medicine trainees (19.7%) received an R01 in the future ( P < 0.0001). Surgeons who received F32 grants were more likely to be department chair or division chiefs ( P =0.0055 and P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Surgery trainees who obtain NIH F32 grants during dedicated research years are less likely to receive any form of NIH funding in the future compared with their internal medicine colleagues who received F32 grants.

A quantitative analysis of Twitter ("X") trends in the discussion of rhinoplasty.

Introduction: Rhinoplasty is one of the most common cosmetic surgical procedures performed globally. Twitter, also known as "X," is used by both patients and physicians and has been studied as a useful tool for analyzing trends in healthcare. The public social media discourse of rhinoplasty has not been previously reported in the field of otolaryngology. The goal of this study was to characterize the most common user type, sentiment, and temporal trends in the discussion of rhinoplasty on Twitter to guide facial plastic surgeons in their clinical and social media practices. Methods: A total of 1,427,015 tweets published from 2015 to 2020 containing the keywords "rhinoplasty" or "nose job" were extracted using Twitter Academic API. Tweets were standardized and filtered for spam and duplication. Natural language processing (NLP) algorithms and data visualization techniques were applied to characterize tweets. Results: Significantly more "nose job" tweets (80.8%) were published compared with "rhinoplasty" (19.2%). Annual tweet frequency increased over the 5 years, with "rhinoplasty" tweets peaking in January and "nose job" tweets peaking in the summer and winter months. Most "rhinoplasty" tweets were linked to a surgeon or medical practice source, while most "nose job" tweets were from isolated laypersons. While discussion was positive in sentiment overall (M = +0.08), "nose job" tweets had lower average sentiment scores (P < .001) and over twice the proportion of negative tweets. The top 20 most prolific accounts contributed to 14,758 (10.6%) of total "rhinoplasty" tweets. Exactly 90% (18/20) of those accounts linked to non-academic surgeons compared with 10% (2/20) linked to academic surgeons. Conclusions: Rhinoplasty-related posts on Twitter were cumulatively positive in sentiment and tweet volume is steadily increasing over time, especially during popular holiday months. The search term "nose job" yields significantly more results than "rhinoplasty," and is the preferred term of non-healthcare users. We found a large digital contribution from surgeons and medical practices, particularly in the non-academic and private practice sector, utilizing Twitter for promotional purposes.

Characterizing Gender-Affirming Voice Intervention Discussion on Social Media: A Cross-Platform Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Gender-affirming voice treatments, such as voice training and surgery, are highly impactful for transgender patients experiencing vocal dysphoria and may be discussed on social media platforms including Twitter and Reddit. Our goal was to characterize the content and sentiment of social media posts pertaining to gender-affirming voice interventions to better understand the needs of this patient population. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective data-mining study. METHODS: A total of 18,695 Tweets from 2001 to 2021 and 23,742 r/Transvoice Reddit submissions and comments from 2009 to 2020 were extracted via publicly available application programming interfaces and analyzed using language processing and sentiment analysis techniques. One thousand eighty-six highly emotive r/Transvoice posts related to voice modification treatments were manually reviewed for further classification. RESULTS: Online discussion of gender-affirming voice has increased over time and is centered on vocal feminization. Recurrent themes included use of online training resources, singing voice, and barriers to care such as cost and variable experiences with health care providers. Sentiment analysis demonstrated that posts discussing gender-affirming voice training had higher average sentiment scores than those discussing voice surgery, on both Twitter (0.252 vs 0.161; P < 0.001) and Reddit (0.349 vs 0.301; P < 0.001). Frequently appearing themes in highly negative surgery posts included mixed outcomes (9.3%), surgical complications (9.3%), and recovery time (8.5%). Common themes shared by the positive subgroup analysis included peer support, vocal quality, and importance of practice. CONCLUSIONS: Gender-diverse patients share various concerns and resources relating to voice intervention in the online communities of Twitter and Reddit. The discussion has been growing over the past decade and is mostly positive, with significant social support and resource-sharing within the community. Aggregated online sentiment toward gender-affirming voice surgery is more negative than voice training, largely due to concerns about surgical outcomes and variability, risks, and recovery period.

Evaluation and workup of immunodeficiencies in recurrent acute rhinosinusitis: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Primary immunodeficiency disorders (PIDDs) may be a risk factor for development of recurrent acute rhinosinusitis (RARS). There are currently no clear guidelines for the timing and methodology of PIDD testing in patients with RARS. The aim of this scoping review is to identify and analyze existing literature on this topic. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Articles addressing recurrent acute sinusitis and immunodeficiencies were collected from PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and systematically evaluated for eligibility by two reviewers. RESULTS: Of the 209 unique articles identified, 11 met criteria for review and analysis. Articles consisted of historical cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies, in addition to case series and nonsystematic reviews. The majority (10) recommended immunodeficiency testing, consisting of general immunologic screening (3), quantitative immunoglobulins (6), and postvaccination antibody titers (5). There was an emphasis on immunoglobulin G (IgG) subclass testing (6). Of the eight articles providing timing recommendations, the majority recommended testing after recurrent infections or diagnosis (6); however, criteria for diagnosis of RARS and populations targeted by recommendations varied greatly by article. CONCLUSION: Current literature on RARS emphasizes immunoglobulin quantification and postvaccination antibody titers to evaluate for PIDD after diagnosis, but recommendations are limited by wide-ranging populations of interest and inconsistent definitions. This scoping review identified a lack of evidence-based articles specific to diagnostic workup for PIDD in patients with RARS, and additional research with standardized definitions and focus on RARS is necessary to guide clinical practice.