Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgeons Achieve High Rates of K Award Conversion Into R01 Funding

Narahari, Adishesh K.; Mehaffey, J. Hunter; Hawkins, Robert B.; Baderdinni, Pranav K.; Chandrabhatla, Anirudha S.; Tribble, Curtis G.; Krön, Irving L.; Roeser, Mark E.; Walters, Dustin M.; Ailawadi, Gorav

doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.02.029

Cited by 23 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…KL2 scholars are able to provide a "larger" publication history before their K08/K23 counterparts. This is consistent with some previous research which suggests that K awards who published nine publications per K year were significantly more likely to convert to R-funding compared to those with four publications [5]; however, this research has thus far focused on K awardees who are surgeons. Additional research into the predictive relationship between publications and R-funding is needed for other earlycareer CTR investigators, such as KL2s.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…While the primary outcome across KL2 programs is to establish independent CTR investigators, institutions operationalize "independent funding" differently. Some examples of the variability in the definition of achieving independent funding include: principal investigator (PI) roles on any grant, PI on an NIH R01 grant, other key roles such as Co-PI or Co-I on an NIH R01 grant, R-level funding (either NIH or Non-NIH), and time to R01 [3][4][5]. Independent funding, in any of these forms, may be the primary outcome for KL2 programs, but it is not the singular outcome.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Using bibliometrics to evaluate translational science training: evidence for early career success of KL2 scholars

Qua

Pelfrey

2020

J. Clin. Trans. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTION: Evaluating clinical and translational research (CTR) mentored training programs is challenging because no two programs are alike. Careful selection of appropriate metrics is required to make valid comparisons between individuals and between programs. The KL2 program provides mentored-training for early stage CTR investigators. Clinical and Translational Awards (CSTAs) across the country have unique KL2 programs. The evaluation of KL2 programs has begun to incorporate bibliometrics to measure KL2 scholar and program impact. METHODS: This study investigated demographic differences in bibliometric performance and post-K award funding of KL2 scholars and compared the bibliometric performance and post-K award federal funding of KL2 scholars and other mentored-K awardees at the same institution. Data for this study included SciVal and iCite bibliometrics and NIH RePORTER grant information for mentored-K awardees (K08, K23, and KL2) at Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) between 2005 and 2013. RESULTS: Results showed no demographics differences within the KL2 program scholars. Bibliometric differences between KL2 and other mentored-K awardee indicated an initial KL2 advantage for the number of publications at five years post-matriculation (i.e., the start of the K-award). Regression analyses indicated the number of initial publications was a significant predictor of federal grant funding at the same time point. Analysis beyond the five-year post matriculation point did not result in a sustained, significant KL2-advantage. CONCLUSIONS: Factors that contributed to the grant funding advantage need to be determined. Additionally, differences between translational and clinical bibliometrics must be interpreted with caution and appropriate metrics for translational science must be established.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using bibliometrics to evaluate translational science training: evidence for early career success of KL2 scholars

Qua

Pelfrey

2020

J. Clin. Trans. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This calculation has been previously used to evaluate productivity with the given limitations described above. 20,23,24 Impact factors of journals are calculated by the number of average citations an article in that journal received the previous two years. Our Grant Impact Metric calculation assumes that journals with higher impact factors are difficult to publish in and that publishing in a high impact journal correlates to a high level of productivity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Lung Transplant Surgeons Still Be Scientists? High Productivity Despite Competitive Funding

Narahari

Charles

Mehaffey

et al. 2019

HSF

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Today’s declining federal budget for scientific research is making it consistently more difficult to become federally funded. We hypothesized that even in this difficult era, surgeon-scientists have remained among the most productive and impactful researchers in lung transplantation. Methods: Grants awarded by the NIH for the study of lung transplantation between 1985 and 2015 were identified by searching NIH RePORTER for 5 lung transplantation research areas. A grant impact metric was calculated for each grant by dividing the sum of impact factors for all associated manuscripts by the total funding for that grant. We used nonparametric univariate analysis to compare grant impact metrics by department. Results: We identified 109 lung transplantation grants, totaling approximately $300 million, resulting in 2304 papers published in 421 different journals. Surgery has the third highest median grant impact metric (4.2 per $100,000). The department of surgery had a higher median grant impact metric compared to private companies (P <.0001). There was no statistical difference in the grant impact metric compared to all other medical specialties, individual departments with multiple grants, or all basic science departments (all P >.05). Conclusions: Surgeon-scientists in the field of lung transplantation have received fewer grants and less total funding compared to other researchers but have maintained an equally high level of productivity and impact. The dual-threat academic surgeon-scientist is an important asset to the research community and should continue to be supported by the NIH.

show abstract

“…This grant impact metric has been used previously. 14,19 The equation used for calculating grant impact metric is:…”

Section: Calculation Of Grant Impact Metricmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Changing Face of Academic Surgery: Overrepresentation of Women among Surgeon-Scientists with R01 Funding

Krebs

Narahari

Cook-Armstrong

et al. 2020

Journal of the American College of Surgeons

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: There has been a recent focus on sex-based disparities within the field of academic surgery. However, the proportion of female surgeons conducting NIH-funded research is unknown. STUDY DESIGN: The NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results) was queried for R01 grants from surgery departments for which the principal investigator (PI) had a primary medical degree, as of October 2018. Characteristics of the PI and their respective grants were collected. Institutional faculty profiles were reviewed for PI and departmental characteristics. PIs were stratified by sex and compared using standard univariate statistics. RESULTS: There were a total of 212 R01 grants in surgery departments held by 159 PIs. Of these, 26.4% (n ¼ 42) of R01-funded surgeons were female compared with the reported 19% of academic surgery female faculty (as reported by the Association of American Medical Colleges; p ¼ 0.02). Women with R01 grants were more likely to be first-time grant recipients with no concurrent or previous NIH funding (21.4% vs 8.6%; p ¼ 0.03) and less likely to have a previous R01 or equivalent grant (54.8% vs 73.5%; p ¼ 0.03). Women were more likely to be from departments with a female surgery chair (31.0% vs 13.7%; p ¼ 0.01) or a department with > 30% female surgeons (35.0% vs 18.2%; p ¼ 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Although female surgeons remain a minority in academic surgery, they hold a greater than anticipated proportion of NIH funding, with a high number of first-time grants, forming a crucial component of the next generation of surgeon-scientists.

show abstract

Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgeons Achieve High Rates of K Award Conversion Into R01 Funding

Abstract: CTV surgeons have an equal 10-year conversion rate to the first R01 award compared with other clinicians. These data suggest that NIH achieves a good return on investment when funding CTV surgeon-scientists with K-level funding.

Cited by 23 publications

References 15 publications

Using bibliometrics to evaluate translational science training: evidence for early career success of KL2 scholars

Using bibliometrics to evaluate translational science training: evidence for early career success of KL2 scholars

Can Lung Transplant Surgeons Still Be Scientists? High Productivity Despite Competitive Funding

The Changing Face of Academic Surgery: Overrepresentation of Women among Surgeon-Scientists with R01 Funding

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About