Early outcomes of the American Academy of Neurological Surgery Emerging Investigator Program in promoting neurosurgeon-scientists

Srienc, Anja I.; Church, Sophie C.; Korn, Stephen J.; Lonser, Russell R.; Zipfel, Gregory J.

doi:10.3171/2022.5.jns212846

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, the Society of Vascular Surgery Foundation Career Development Award has provided supplemental funds to 31 K08-awarded and 10 K23-awarded vascular surgeons since 1999, 62% of whom were successful in transitioning to independent funding (R series award) . Furthermore, an early analysis of the American Academy of Neurological Surgery Emerging Investigator Program found that providing a structured mechanism for mentoring young surgeon-scientists resulted in 67% of the recipients successfully earning NIH funding . It was concluded by Keswani et al that surgeons successful in transitioning from a mentored to independent career did so in the first 9 years after fellowship.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

National Institutes of Health Funding for Surgeon-Scientists in the US—An Update and an Expanded Landscape

Demblowski,

Steinberg,

Meseroll

et al. 2024

JAMA Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceCurrent reports suggest that the surgeon-scientist phenotype is significantly threatened. However, a significant increase in the proportion of surgeons in the workforce funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from 2010 (0.5%) to 2020 (0.7%) was recently reported and showed that surgeons primarily performed basic science research (78% in 2010; 73% in 2020) rather than clinical research.ObjectiveTo provide an update on the status of surgeons funded by the NIH for fiscal year (FY) 2022.Evidence ReviewNIH-funded surgeons were identified in FY2012 and FY2022, including those who were awarded grants with more than 1 principal investigator (PI) by querying the internal database at the NIH. The main outcome for this study was the total number of NIH-funded surgeons in FY2012 and FY2022, including total grant costs and number of grants. The secondary analysis included self-reported demographic characteristics of the surgeons in FY2022. The research type (basic science vs clinical) of R01 grants was also examined.FindingsIncluding multiple PI grants, 1324 surgeon-scientists were awarded $1.3 billion in FY2022. Women surgeons increased to 31.3% (339 of 1084) of the population of surgeon PIs in FY2022 compared with 21.0% (184 of 876) in FY2012. Among surgeon PIs awarded grants, a total of 200 (22.8%) were Asian, 35 (4.0%) were Black or African American, 18 (2.1%) were another race (including American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and more than 1 race), and 623 (71.1%) were White. A total of 513 of 689 R01 grants (74.5%) were for basic science, 131 (19.0%) were for clinical trials, and 45 (6.5%) were for outcomes research.Conclusions and RelevanceNIH-funded surgeons are increasing in number and grant costs, including the proportion of women surgeon PIs, and are representative of the diversity among US academic surgical faculty. The results of this study suggest that despite the many obstacles surgeon-scientists face, their research portfolio continues to grow, they perform a myriad of mostly basic scientific research as both independent PIs and on multidisciplinary teams.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

National Institutes of Health Funding for Surgeon-Scientists in the US—An Update and an Expanded Landscape

Demblowski,

Steinberg,

Meseroll

et al. 2024

JAMA Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The success of the Academy EIP is evident; of the 15 scholars who were part of the first 2 cohorts of the EIP, 10 (67%) have secured NIH funding. 12 As a well-designed intervention at a critical moment when junior faculty may not otherwise progress to NIH funding, this limited program is a model that can be easily adapted on a local level to support junior neurosurgeon-scientists as grants are being revised and resubmitted. Expansion on these initial successes is ongoing; for example, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons Spine Section is launching a spine-focused EIP, and the SNS-backed Neurosurgeon-Scientist Training Program looks to serve as a formal, funded, mentored research program for neurosurgery residents.…”

Section: Successful Transition To Independent Neurosurgeon-scientistmentioning

confidence: 99%

Roadmap for Development of a Strong, Diverse Research Workforce in Neurosurgery

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A benchmark of success for the neurosurgeon-scientist includes obtaining individual research funding from the National Institutes of Health. Successful roadmaps to this goal highlight diversity, individual commitment and resiliency, innovative research goals, intentional mentoring, protected research time, and financial support. We must equip neurosurgery residents to surmount obstacles such as long periods of training, gaps in research productivity, and limited protected time for research to ensure successful transition to independent research careers. Strong individual, departmental, and national commitment to scientific development of a diverse cohort of residents and junior faculty will increase the number and diversity of National Institutes of Health–funded neurosurgeon-scientists.

show abstract

“…The current neurosurgery training approach has incorporated many of these features into their integrated training model with great success. [23][24][25] Finally, parts of the research training paradigm can be incorporated into residency and fellowship for all trainees, with only those seeking a surgeon-scientist career spending 18 to 36 months dedicated to research. It will take time to evolve from the current model so it is also crucial to consider ways to presently mitigate these common pain points, including establishing a research track that can fit within the existing ACGME curriculum and awarding catalyst grants to productive residents that enable them to return to clinical work but allow the research to continue in the mentor's laboratory with a supporting technician or research staff scientists.…”

Section: Redesign the Surgeon-scientist Training Paradigmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the concepts of early engagement, continuity, and full integration of research within the surgical training years, as well as early specialization should guide the redesign of surgical training paradigms. The current neurosurgery training approach has incorporated many of these features into their integrated training model with great success 23–25 . Finally, parts of the research training paradigm can be incorporated into residency and fellowship for all trainees, with only those seeking a surgeon-scientist career spending 18 to 36 months dedicated to research.…”

Section: Blueprint To Sustain and Grow The Impact Of Surgical Scientistsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transforming the Future of Surgeon-Scientists

Ladner,

Goldstein,

Billiar

et al. 2023

Annals of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To create a blueprint for surgical department leaders, academic institutions, and funding agencies to optimally support surgeon-scientists. Summary Background Data: Scientific contributions by surgeons have been transformative across many medical disciplines. Surgeon-scientists provide a distinct approach and mindset toward key scientific questions. However, lack of institutional support, pressure for increased clinical productivity and growing administrative burden are major challenges for the surgeon-scientist, as is the time-consuming nature of surgical training and practice. Methods: An American Surgical Association (ASA) Research Sustainability Task Force was created to outline a blueprint for sustainable science in surgery. Leaders from top NIH-sponsored departments of surgery engaged in video and in-person meetings between January and April 2023. A SWOT analysis was performed, and workgroups focused on the roles of surgeons, the department and institutions, and funding agencies. Results: Taskforce recommendations: (1) SURGEONS: Growth mindset: identifying research focus, long-term planning, patience/tenacity, team science, collaborations with disparate experts; Skill set: align skills and research, fill critical skill gaps, develop team leadership skills; DEPARTMENT OF SURGERY (DOS): (2) MENTORSHIP: Chair: mentor - mentee matching / regular meetings / accountability, review of junior faculty progress, mentorship training requirement, recognition of mentorship (e.g., RVU equivalent, awards; Mentor: dedicated time, relevant scientific expertise, extramural funding, experience and/or trained as mentor, trusted advisor; Mentee: enthusiastic / eager, proactive, open to feedback, clear about goals; (3) FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY: diversification of research portfolio, identification of matching funding sources, departmental resource awards (e.g., T- / P-grants), leveraging of institutional resources, negotiation of formalized / formulaic funds flow investment from AMC towards science, philanthropy; (4) STRUCTURAL / STRATEGIC SUPPORT: Structural: grants administrative support, biostats / bioinformatics support, clinical trial and research support, regulatory support, shared departmental lab space / equipment; Strategic: hiring diverse surgeon-scientist/scientists faculty across DOS, strategic faculty retention / recruitment, philanthropy, career development support, progress tracking, grant writing support, DOS-wide research meetings, regular DOS strategic research planning; (5) COMMUNITY AND CULTURE: Community: right mix of faculty, connection surgeon with broad scientific community; Culture: building research infrastructure, financial support for research, projecting importance of research (awards, grand rounds, shoutouts); (6) THE ROLE OF INSTITUTIONS: Foundation: research space co-location, flexible start-up packages, courses / mock study section, awards, diverse institutional mentorship teams; Nurture: institutional infrastructure, funding (e.g., endowed chairs), promotion friendly towards surgeon-scientists, surgeon-scientists in institutional leadership positions; Expectations: RVU target relief, salary gap funding, competitive starting salaries, longitudinal salary strategy; (7) THE ROLE OF FUNDING AGENCIES: change surgeon research training paradigm, offer alternate awards to K-awards, increasing salary cap to reflect market reality, time extension for surgeon early-stage investigator (ESI) status, surgeon representation on study section, focused award strategies for professional societies/foundations. Conclusions: Authentic recommitment from surgeon leaders with intentional and ambitious actions from institutions, corporations, funders, and society is essential in order to reap the essential benefits of surgeon-scientists towards advancements of science.

show abstract

Early outcomes of the American Academy of Neurological Surgery Emerging Investigator Program in promoting neurosurgeon-scientists

Cited by 5 publications

References 25 publications

National Institutes of Health Funding for Surgeon-Scientists in the US—An Update and an Expanded Landscape

National Institutes of Health Funding for Surgeon-Scientists in the US—An Update and an Expanded Landscape

Roadmap for Development of a Strong, Diverse Research Workforce in Neurosurgery

Transforming the Future of Surgeon-Scientists

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About