Abstract Or101: Evaluating the National Institutes of Health Pipeline for Resuscitation Science Investigators

Background: The pipeline of investigators studying resuscitation science and their contributions to the field after attaining research independence are largely unknown. Our objective was to identify and compare the number of National Institutes of Health (NIH) K awardees studying CA vs. stroke research and determine both cohorts’ success rates in transitioning to independent R01 funding. Methods: The NIH RePORTER database was queried from 2008 to 2018 to identify CA grants using published methodology. The CA grants were filtered by activity code to identify mentored individual K awards (defined as K01, K08, K23, or K99). A second query was then performed using principal investigators (PIs) for each K award, and the results were filtered to identify all R01 grants with the former K award recipients listed as the contact PI/PD or other PI/project lead. Stroke grants from the same epoch were exported from the NIH categorical spending reports, where stroke research is a distinct line item. Subsequent R01 funding for the stroke grants was identified using the above process. The outcome measures include: total K awards, R01 conversion within 5 or 7 years from K award receipt, and the proportion of awardees who remained focused on CA or stroke research at the R01 level. Data were presented as counts, proportions, and median/interquartile ranges. Proportions were compared using the Chi-Square test or Fisher’s exact test. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: A total of 857 CA grants were identified, including 272 individual awards, compared to 8,520 stroke grants with 2,788 individual awards. K awards comprised 11.4% of CA grants versus 6.6% for stroke grants (p=0.003). The R01 conversion rate was 51.6% for CA and 57.3% for stroke (p=0.555). The median transition time from K to R01 was 5.5 years (IQR 4-6) for CA and 5 years (IQR 4-7) for stroke. CA K awardees secured 27 funded R01s, while stroke counterparts received 163. A total of 48.1% of CA K awardees continued CA research at the R01 level, versus 63.8% for stroke (p=0.121). Conclusion: Although the volume of federally funded grants and K awards focused on CA research is significantly smaller than that of stroke research, the outputs for both fields appear similar. More than half of R01 awards from the CA cohort departed from their original content focus. These findings should help inform efforts to expand the resuscitation science young investigator pipeline.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Circulation
Published
2024-11-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1161/circ.150.suppl_1.or101
Primary Topic
Disaster Response and Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Abstract Or101: Evaluating the National Institutes of Health Pipeline for Resuscitation Science Investigators

Sarah Perman, Michael C. Kurz, Marina Del Rios, Ryan Huebinger et al.
Circulation
Disaster Response and Management
article

Abstract Or101: Evaluating the National Institutes of Health Pipeline for Resuscitation Science Investigators

Sarah Perman, Michael C. Kurz, Marina Del Rios, Ryan Huebinger, Ryan A. Coute
article en

Abstract

Background: The pipeline of investigators studying resuscitation science and their contributions to the field after attaining research independence are largely unknown. Our objective was to identify and compare the number of National Institutes of Health (NIH) K awardees studying CA vs. stroke research and determine both cohorts’ success rates in transitioning to independent R01 funding. Methods: The NIH RePORTER database was queried from 2008 to 2018 to identify CA grants using published methodology. The CA grants were filtered by activity code to identify mentored individual K awards (defined as K01, K08, K23, or K99). A second query was then performed using principal investigators (PIs) for each K award, and the results were filtered to identify all R01 grants with the former K award recipients listed as the contact PI/PD or other PI/project lead. Stroke grants from the same epoch were exported from the NIH categorical spending reports, where stroke research is a distinct line item. Subsequent R01 funding for the stroke grants was identified using the above process. The outcome measures include: total K awards, R01 conversion within 5 or 7 years from K award receipt, and the proportion of awardees who remained focused on CA or stroke research at the R01 level. Data were presented as counts, proportions, and median/interquartile ranges. Proportions were compared using the Chi-Square test or Fisher’s exact test. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: A total of 857 CA grants were identified, including 272 individual awards, compared to 8,520 stroke grants with 2,788 individual awards. K awards comprised 11.4% of CA grants versus 6.6% for stroke grants (p=0.003). The R01 conversion rate was 51.6% for CA and 57.3% for stroke (p=0.555). The median transition time from K to R01 was 5.5 years (IQR 4-6) for CA and 5 years (IQR 4-7) for stroke. CA K awardees secured 27 funded R01s, while stroke counterparts received 163. A total of 48.1% of CA K awardees continued CA research at the R01 level, versus 63.8% for stroke (p=0.121). Conclusion: Although the volume of federally funded grants and K awards focused on CA research is significantly smaller than that of stroke research, the outputs for both fields appear similar. More than half of R01 awards from the CA cohort departed from their original content focus. These findings should help inform efforts to expand the resuscitation science young investigator pipeline.

CirculationVol. 150(Suppl_1)
University of Iowa (US), University of New Mexico (US), University of Alabama at Birmingham (US), Yale University (US), University of Chicago (US)
Partnerships for the goals
Openalex Percentile: Top 63%
Disaster Response and Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.