Analysis of tauopathy research funding between 2006 and 2016 reveals critical gaps in research priorities

An analysis of the Clinical and Translational Science Award pilot project portfolio using data from Research Performance Progress Reports

Introduction:

Pilot projects (“pilots”) are important for testing hypotheses in advance of investing more funds for full research studies. For some programs, such as Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) supported by the National Center for Translational Sciences, pilots also make up a significant proportion of the research projects conducted with direct CTSA support. Unfortunately, administrative data on pilots are not typically captured in accessible databases. Though data on pilots are included in Research Performance Progress Reports, it is often difficult to extract, especially for large programs like the CTSAs where more than 600 pilots may be reported across all awardees annually. Data extraction challenges preclude analyses that could provide valuable information about pilots to researchers and administrators.

Methods:

To address those challenges, we describe a script that partially automates extraction of pilot data from CTSA research progress reports. After extraction of the pilot data, we use an established machine learning (ML) model to determine the scientific content of pilots for subsequent analysis. Analysis of ML-assigned scientific categories reveals the scientific diversity of the CTSA pilot portfolio and relationships among individual pilots and institutions.

Results:

The CTSA pilots are widely distributed across a number of scientific areas. Content analysis identifies similar projects and the degree of overlap for scientific interests among hubs.

Conclusion:

Our results demonstrate that pilot data remain challenging to extract but can provide useful information for communicating with stakeholders, administering pilot portfolios, and facilitating collaboration among researchers and hubs.

Evolution of the Research Literature and the Scientific Community of Alzheimer's Disease from 1983-2017: A 35-Year Survey

This study surveys the development of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the research literature, the scientific community, and the journals containing AD papers over a 35-year period. Research papers on AD published from 1983 to 2017 in journals indexed in the Web of Science were analyzed in seven five-year periods. The number of AD papers increased from 1,095 in 1983-1987 to 50,532 by 2013-2017 and in the same time period, the number of participating countries went from 27 to 152. The US was the most prolific country throughout, followed by several European countries, Canada, Australia, and Japan. Asian countries have emerged and by 2013-2017, China surpassed all but the US in productivity. Countries in Latin America and Africa have also contributed to AD research. Additionally, several new non-governmental institutions (e.g., ADNI, ADI) have emerged and now play a key role in the fight against AD. Likewise the AD scientific publishing universe evolved in various aspects: an increase in number of journals containing AD papers (227 journals in 1983-1987 to 3,257 in 2013-2017); appearance of several AD-focused journals, e.g., Alzheimer's & Dementia, Journal of Alzheimer's Disease; and the development of special issues dedicated to AD. Our paper complements the numerous extant papers on theoretical and clinical aspects of AD and provides a description of the research landscape of the countries and journals contributing papers related to AD.

Eponyms are here to stay

Objective

To assess the historical trends of medical eponym use in neurology literature and knowledge and attitudes among current trainees related to eponyms.

Methods

A comprehensive list of medical eponyms compiled from multiple online and print sources was queried against the titles and abstracts of PubMed articles authored by neurologists to assess historical prevalence in the literature from 1988 to 2013. We also surveyed current neurology trainees and trainees who have matched for residency in neurology, but not yet started neurology training, on their familiarity and attitudes toward eponyms.

Results

The yearly prevalence of eponyms among neurologist-authored publications ranged from 15% and 25%, with a mean of 21%. The total number of unique eponyms appearing in titles and abstracts increased from 693 in 1988 to 1,076 in 2013, representing 1.8% average annual growth. Our survey showed that residents with at least 1 year of neurology training reported familiarity with significantly more eponyms than those before neurology training (p < 0.001). For familiar eponyms, most residents were either unaware of an alternative descriptor or preferred using the eponym. Despite recognizing both the benefits and drawbacks of eponyms, the vast majority of trainees stated that historical precedent, pervasiveness, and ease of use would drive the continued use of eponyms in neurology.

Conclusions

Eponyms will remain a cornerstone in medical education and communication moving forward. Educators in neurology should consider how best to integrate useful eponyms and alternative descriptors into residency training to enhance knowledge acquisition and retention.