NIH funding trends for neurosurgeon-scientists from 1993-2017: Biomedical workforce implications for neurooncology

Evaluating neurosurgical society award recipients: An analysis of awardee characteristics with respect to gender, race, education, geographic location, and neurosurgical society

INTRODUCTION

Professional society awards can substantially impact career trajectory of awardees in neurosurgery. Past studies have discussed the demographics of neurosurgery conference awardees in terms of gender and professional experience; however, a full assessment of awardee qualities and characteristics has yet to be studied.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study is to provide a comprehensive evaluation of neurosurgical society winners that focuses on gender, race, academic degrees, and institutional/geographic affiliation.

METHODS

Data of awardees across 14 neurosurgical societies from 2019 to 2022 was recorded. Variables recorded include professional society, award classification, year won, age, gender, race and ethnicity, board certification status, MD graduation year, degrees obtained, awardee home institution location, h-index, and NIH-funding. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS.

RESULTS

A total of 102 unique awards from 14 different societies between 2019 and 2022 were identified. Significantly more men (83 %) as compared to women (17 %) were awardees (p < 0.001). Awardees were significantly more likely to be Caucasian as compared to any other race (p < 0.001), and Caucasian awardees were more likely to be board certified and receive NIH funding. A higher proportion of male awardees had a PhD; however, the majority of all awardees were significantly more likely to not have a PhD or be board certified (p < 0.001). The majority of awardees were based in the Northeastern United States.

CONCLUSIONS

Among winners of neurosurgical society awards, significant differences exist with respect to gender, race, ethnicity, degree type, and geographic location. Future research endeavors are needed to explore the reason for why these differences exist to ultimately develop strategies that promote equal opportunities for all neurosurgeons.

Science for tomorrow's neurosurgery: insights on establishing a neurosurgery patient group focused on developing novel intra-operative imaging techniques

BACKGROUND

Incorporating patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is crucial for ensuring the relevance and success of studies, yet it remains significantly underutilised in surgical research.

MAIN BODY

This commentary presents insights from our neurosurgical research team's experience with establishing and working with a PPI group called "Science for Tomorrow's Neurosurgery" on research regarding novel intra-operative optical imaging techniques. Through collaboration with patient-focused charities, we have successfully incorporated patient perspectives into our work at each stage of the research pipeline, whilst adhering to core PPI principles, such as reciprocal relationships, co-learning, partnerships, and transparency.

CONCLUSION

We highlight the specific value added to our work in terms of participant recruitment, research ethics and results dissemination.

Postgraduate Fellowships, Distant Continuing Education, and Funding in Neurosurgical Education

Neurosurgical education and training are the essential tenets for the development of a sustainable workforce. However, opportunities for training are limited in most parts of the world due to socioeconomic constraints and an inadequate workforce. This global deficit has triggered a huge drive to expand training opportunities. Although training programs are increasing numerically, most of these programs focus on basic residency training with no opportunities for fellowships and continuing education. Herein, we use the Foundation of International Education in Neurological Surgery as a global success model to elucidate on the role of fellowships, distant continuing education, and funding in neurosurgery.

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

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.

Roadmap for Successful Research Training in Neurosurgery

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 individual commitment and resiliency, innovative research goals, intentional mentoring, protected research time, and financial support. Neurosurgery residents must carefully plan their training career to surmount obstacles such as long clinical training period, gaps in research productivity during clinical training, and limited protected time for research to ensure successful transition to independent research careers. To maximize potential for success as a neurosurgeon-scientist, individuals should have strong research experience on entering residency, choose residency programs that enthusiastically commit to research success among its residents, choose research mentors who will guide them expertly toward a research career, and become well-prepared to apply for research funding during residency. Moreover, individuals who wish to become leaders as neurosurgeon-researchers should seek environments that provide exposure to the widest range of experiences, perspectives, and thinking about medical and research problems.

Dispersion of NIH Funding to Departments of Surgery is Contracting

INTRODUCTION

NIH funding to departments of surgery reported as benchmark Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research (BRIMR) rankings are unclear.

METHODS

We analyzed inflation-adjusted BRIMR-reported NIH funding to departments of surgery and medicine between 2011 and 2021.

RESULTS

NIH funding to departments of surgery and medicine both increased 40% from 2011 to 2021 ($325 million to $454 million; $3.8 billion to $5.3 billion, P < 0.001 for both). The number of BRIMR-ranked departments of surgery decreased 14% during this period while departments of medicine increased 5% (88 to 76 versus 111 to 116; P < 0.001). There was a greater increase in the total number of medicine PIs versus surgery PIs during this period (4377 to 5224 versus 557 to 649; P < 0.001). These trends translated to further concentration of NIH-funded PIs in medicine versus surgery departments (45 PIs/program versus 8.5 PIs/program; P < 0.001). NIH funding and PIs/program in 2021 were respectively 32 and 20 times greater for the top versus lowest 15 BRIMR-ranked surgery departments ($244 million versus $7.5 million [P < 0.01]; 20.5 versus 1.3 [P < 0.001]). Twelve (80%) of the top 15 surgery departments maintained this ranking over the 10-year study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Although NIH funding to departments of surgery and medicine is growing at a similar rate, departments of medicine and top-funded surgery departments have greater funding and concentration of PIs/program versus surgery departments overall and lowest-funded surgery departments. Strategies used by top-performing departments to obtain and maintain funding may assist less well-funded departments in obtaining extramural research funding, thus broadening the access of surgeon-scientists to perform NIH-supported research.

IDH-wild-type glioblastoma cell density and infiltration distribution influence on supramarginal resection and its impact on overall survival: a mathematical model

OBJECTIVE

Recent studies have proposed resection of the T2 FLAIR hyperintensity beyond the T1 contrast enhancement (supramarginal resection [SMR]) for IDH-wild-type glioblastoma (GBM) to further improve patients' overall survival (OS). GBMs have significant variability in tumor cell density, distribution, and infiltration. Advanced mathematical models based on patient-specific radiographic features have provided new insights into GBM growth kinetics on two important parameters of tumor aggressiveness: proliferation rate (ρ) and diffusion rate (D). The aim of this study was to investigate OS of patients with IDH-wild-type GBM who underwent SMR based on a mathematical model of cell distribution and infiltration profile (tumor invasiveness profile).

METHODS

Volumetric measurements were obtained from the selected regions of interest from pre- and postoperative MRI studies of included patients. The tumor invasiveness profile (proliferation/diffusion [ρ/D] ratio) was calculated using the following formula: ρ/D ratio = (4π/3)2/3 × (6.106/[VT21/1 - VT11/1])2, where VT2 and VT1 are the preoperative FLAIR and contrast-enhancing volumes, respectively. Patients were split into subgroups based on their tumor invasiveness profiles. In this analysis, tumors were classified as nodular, moderately diffuse, or highly diffuse.

RESULTS

A total of 101 patients were included. Tumors were classified as nodular (n = 34), moderately diffuse (n = 34), and highly diffuse (n = 33). On multivariate analysis, increasing SMR had a significant positive correlation with OS for moderately and highly diffuse tumors (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98-0.99; p = 0.02; and HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96-0.99; p = 0.04, respectively). On threshold analysis, OS benefit was seen with SMR from 10% to 29%, 10% to 59%, and 30% to 90%, for nodular, moderately diffuse, and highly diffuse, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The impact of SMR on OS for patients with IDH-wild-type GBM is influenced by the degree of tumor invasiveness. The authors' results show that increasing SMR is associated with increased OS in patients with moderate and highly diffuse IDH-wild-type GBMs. When grouping SMR into 10% intervals, this benefit was seen for all tumor subgroups, although for nodular tumors, the maximum beneficial SMR percentage was considerably lower than in moderate and highly diffuse tumors.