To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Research grants.
Journal articles on the topic 'Research grants'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Research grants.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Fineberg, Naomi, and Madelyn L. Wheeler. "Grants/Research." Diabetes Educator 13, no. 2 (March 1987): 138–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014572178701300214.
Full text
2
Rushakoff, Robert J. "Grants/Research." Diabetes Educator 13, no. 4 (September 1987): 430. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014572178701300419.
Full text
3
Guthrie, Diana W. "Grants/Research." Diabetes Educator 14, no. 1 (February 1988): 68–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014572178801400123.
Full text
4
Wylie-Rosett, Judith, Samuel Engel, Gail D'Eramo, Roger Mazze, Joann Murphy, Harry Shamoon, Susan Slagle, Mary Villeneuve, Jean Wilson, and Norman Fleischer. "Grants/Research." Diabetes Educator 15, no. 4 (August 1989): 366–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014572178901500420.
Full text
5
Pinyerd, Belinda J. "Grants/Research." Diabetes Educator 16, no. 2 (April 1990): 96–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014572179001600204.
Full text
6
Drass, Janicb A., and Priscilla C. Boykin. "Grants/Research." Diabetes Educator 16, no. 3 (June 1990): 177–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014572179001600304.
Full text
7
Coxdzurec, Laura. "Grants/Research." Diabetes Educator 16, no. 4 (August 1990): 276–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014572179001600405.
Full text
8
Jones, Phyllis M., Betsy Bohannon, Barbara Irwin, and Joyce Rich. "Grants/Research." Diabetes Educator 17, no. 2 (April 1991): 130–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014572179101700222.
Full text
9
Gardner, Elizabeth. "Research grants." Molecular Medicine Today 1, no. 3 (June 1995): 106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1357-4310(95)80078-6.
Full text
10
Zhu, Jie, Braja Gopal Patra, Hulin Wu, and Ashraf Yaseen. "A novel NIH research grant recommender using BERT." PLOS ONE 18, no. 1 (January 17, 2023): e0278636. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278636.
Full textAbstract:
Research grants are important for researchers to sustain a good position in academia. There are many grant opportunities available from different funding agencies. However, finding relevant grant announcements is challenging and time-consuming for researchers. To resolve the problem, we proposed a grant announcements recommendation system for the National Institute of Health (NIH) grants using researchers’ publications. We formulated the recommendation as a classification problem and proposed a recommender using state-of-the-art deep learning techniques: i.e. Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT), to capture intrinsic, non-linear relationship between researchers’ publications and grants announcements. Internal and external evaluations were conducted to assess the system’s usefulness. During internal evaluations, the grant citations were used to establish grant-publication ground truth, and results were evaluated against Recall@k, Precision@k, Mean reciprocal rank (MRR) and Area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (ROC-AUC). During external evaluations, researchers’ publications were clustered using Dirichlet Process Mixture Model (DPMM), recommended grants by our model were then aggregated per cluster through Recency Weight, and finally researchers were invited to provide ratings to recommendations to calculate Precision@k. For comparison, baseline recommenders using Okapi Best Matching (BM25), Term-Frequency Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF), doc2vec, and Naïve Bayes (NB) were also developed. Both internal and external evaluations (all metrics) revealed favorable performances of our proposed BERT-based recommender.
11
&NA;, &NA;. "RESEARCH GRANTS AVAILABLE." Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing 2, no. 3 (January 1989): 82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005237-198901000-00015.
Full text
12
Anonymous. "Water research grants." Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 69, no. 34 (1988): 802. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/eo069i034p00802-02.
Full text
13
DART, JOHN. "EB research grants." Nature 346, no. 6285 (August 1990): 604. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/346604d0.
Full text
14
Gardner, Elizabeth. "More research grants." Molecular Medicine Today 1, no. 5 (August 1995): 211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1357-4310(95)91323-8.
Full text
15
Ross, Dennis. "Research Grants Available." Orthopaedic Nursing 13, no. 3 (May 1994): 61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00006416-199405000-00019.
Full text
16
&NA;, &NA;. "Research grants available." Orthopaedic Nursing 13, no. 6 (November 1994): 54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00006416-199411000-00012.
Full text
17
Abbott, Paul. "1995 Research Grants." Australian Endodontic Newsletter 20, no. 3 (February 11, 2010): 10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4477.1994.tb00477.x.
Full text
18
Bucy, Paul C. "Neurosurgical research grants." Surgical Neurology 26, no. 2 (August 1986): 201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0090-3019(86)90383-6.
Full text
19
Shayahmetova, Rimma. "The role of sociological research in grant activities." Scientific Research and Development. Socio-Humanitarian Research and Technology 12, no. 1 (April 11, 2023): 19–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.12737/2306-1731-2023-12-1-19-25.
Full textAbstract:
Every year the share of scientists who participate in grant activities increases. Participation in grants becomes a priority in the professional activity of a scientist. Despite the availability of publications on the topic of grants, there are practically no studies on highlighting the place of sociological research in grant activities. The purpose of this study is to show the role of sociological research in the development of projects and typical mistakes in the preparation of applications. Research methodology - the main method was desk research. To solve particular problems, a content analysis of Russian and foreign literature on sociological research and grant activities was used. As a result of the study, the legal framework governing grant activities, the main funds of grantors, the main provisions of the grant application, and the specifics of using sociological research in grant activities were considered. The results of the study can be applied in the field of social and youth policy, in the development of methodological and practical recommendations for the development of applications for grants. The materials of the study formed the basis of the Retraining Program on "Organization of work with youth", advanced training courses "Research work".
20
Tsai, C., B. Tao, C. Wang, AR Vosoughi, E. Bui, KM Chapman, SH Fox, and F. Khosa. "P.022 Gender disparity in canadian institutes of health research funding within neurology." Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques 51, s1 (May 24, 2024): S20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cjn.2024.129.
Full textAbstract:
Background: Despite efforts to advance equity, women face gender-based barriers in research, including fewer senior authorship and grant opportunities. We examined gender disparities in Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) funding for Canadian neurology divisions and departments. Methods: Data on CIHR grant recipients and metrics (duration, quantity, and contribution) within Canadian neurology divisions and departments (2008-2022) were acquired from the CIHR Funding Decisions Database. Gender-based differences in grant prevalence, duration, and contribution amount within neurology were calculated with subgroup analysis for Canadian neurologists and Project Grant awards. Results: 1604 grants were awarded to Canadian neurology divisions and departments between 2008-2022. Women received fewer grants (41.46%), less funding (p<0.0001), and shorter grant durations (p<0.0001) than men annually. Women comprised the minority of recipients (45.47%) and were less likely to be awarded grants (p<0.001) annually relative to men. Differences were consistent in subgroup analyses, except grant durations were equal across genders in Project Grant awards. Conclusions: Gender disparities persist in CIHR grant funding to Canadian neurology divisions and departments. Women receive fewer grants, lower contribution amounts, and are less likely to be recipients compared to men. Future work includes addressing gender differences and continuing to evaluate CIHR funding to provide equitable opportunities for women.
21
Sorrentino, L., J. Rebak, F. Maldonado, V. V. Castro Coello, A. Brigante, A. Hamaui, D. Dubinsky, et al. "POS1186 EFFECT OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS AND EDUCATIONAL LEVEL ON COVID-19 OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATIC DISEASES FROM ARGENTINA: DATA FROM THE SAR-COVID REGISTRY." Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 80, Suppl 1 (May 19, 2021): 874–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-eular.1294.
Full textAbstract:
Background:SARS-CoV-2 infection can present with a broad clinical spectrum, from asymptomatic to lethal. Different risk factors have been recognized. Socio-economic status and educational level may affect access to the healthcare system and therefore COVID-19 infection outcome.Objectives:The aim of this study was to assess the association between socio-demographic status and educational level and SARS-CoV-2 outcomes, such as hospitalization, ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation and death, in Argentinean patients with rheumatic diseases from the SAR-COVID Registry.Methods:We performed a cross-sectional study of consecutive adult patients with rheumatic diseases and SARS-CoV-2 infection included in the multicentric Argentinean SAR-COVID Registry. The following variables were included: gender, ethnicity, age, health insurance, educational level (under or over 12 years of education), socio-economic level according to Graffar Scale in high, medium-high, medium, medium-low, low; underlying rheumatic disease, its duration and treatment at the time of infection.SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes were: hospitalization, admission to ICU, mechanical ventilation requirement and death.Statistical analysis was performed using Chi2, Fisher, T-test, ANOVA.Results:Five hundred and twenty-five patients were included, 422 (80.4%) were female, with a mean age of 51.3 years (SD 15.2). Most of them were caucasians (48%) or mestizos (43%) and 96.8% lived in an urban environment. Almost half of the patients (47%) were categorized as middle-class, 24% middle-high or high class, 21% middle-low or low. 48.4% of the patients were employed. Regarding educational level, 54% had more than 12 years of education.The most prevalent rheumatic disease was Rheumatoid Arthritis (40.4%), followed by Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (14.9%), Sjögren (5.5%) and Psoriatic Arthritis (5.5%). Treatments used at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection were corticosteroids (19%), cs-DMARDs (49%), and b- and ts-DMARDs (16%).Overall hospitalization frequency was 35%, median hospital stay was 10 days (IQR 10 days), 11.6% were admitted to the ICU, 10% required mechanical ventilation and the global mortality was 8%.Notably, patients with less than 12 years of education required mechanical ventilation more frequently than the more educated ones (11.9% vs. 5.6%, p=0.026) and showed a higher mortality due to COVID-19 (9% vs. 2.8%, p=0.0004).Patients categorized as upper social classes (middle-high and high) were admitted to the hospital on a more frequent basis (74.4% of cases), when compared with middle class (64.4%) and middle-low and low class (58%) (p=0.77). Median duration of hospitalization for the aforementioned groups was 12.5 (IQR 17.3), 10 (IQR 9) and 10.5 (IQR 9.3) days respectively (p=0.60).Patients with health insurance were found to be hospitalized more frequently in comparison to those without insurance (42.4% vs. 33.7%, p=0.14), but showed similar admission rates to the ICU (11.8% vs. 12.8%; p=0.78), need for mechanical ventilation (10.7% vs. 8.7%; p=0.70) and mortality (7.1% vs. 6.5%; p=0.99).Caucasian patients had fewer hospital admissions when compared against other ethnicities (mestizos mostly) (26.1% vs. 43.4%; p<0.0001), but showed no statistically significant difference in need for mechanical ventilation 10.3% vs. 9.9% (p=0.99) or mortality 8.7% vs. 5.1% (p=0.15).Conclusion:Patients with lower educational level needed twice the frequency of mechanical ventilation, and showed thrice the mortality than those with more than 12 years of education.Albeit patients in upper social stratus and those with health insurance were admitted to the hospital in a more frequent manner, no statistically significant differences were found regarding the need for ICU, mechanical ventilation or mortality.Caucasians were hospitalized less frequently than mestizos, but had no significant differences in the other measured outcomes.Disclosure of Interests:Laura Sorrentino Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data., Jonathan Rebak Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data., Federico Maldonado Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data., Vanessa Viviana Castro Coello Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data., Alejandro Brigante Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data., Adriana Hamaui Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data., Diana Dubinsky Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data., Roberto Baez Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data., Cecilia Pisoni Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data., Carla Gobbi Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data., Leandro Carlevaris Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data., Romina Tanten Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data., Adriana Karina Cogo Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data., Maria DeLaVega Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data., Rodolfo Perez Alamino Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data., Maria Alicia Lazaro Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data., Mariana Pera Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data., Susana Isabel Pineda Vidal Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data., Maria Elena Calvo Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data., Debora Guaglianone Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data., Carla G Alonso Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data., Mara Guinsburg Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data., Cinthya Retamozo Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data., Carolina Aeschlimann Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data., Rosana Quintana Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data., Karen Roberts Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data., Carolina Ayelen Isnardi Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data., Guillermo Pons Estel Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data.
22
Hansen, William B., and Lawrence M. Scheier. "Specialized Smartphone Intervention Apps: Review of 2014 to 2018 NIH Funded Grants." JMIR mHealth and uHealth 7, no. 7 (July 29, 2019): e14655. http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/14655.
Full textAbstract:
Background The widespread adoption of smartphones provides researchers with expanded opportunities for developing, testing and implementing interventions. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds competitive, investigator-initiated grant applications. Funded grants represent the state of the science and therefore are expected to anticipate the progression of research in the near future. Objective The objective of this paper is to provide an analysis of the kinds of smartphone-based intervention apps funded in NIH research grants during the five-year period between 2014 and 2018. Methods We queried NIH Reporter to identify candidate funded grants that addressed mHealth and the use of smartphones. From 1524 potential grants, we identified 397 that met the requisites of including an intervention app. Each grant’s abstract was analyzed to understand the focus of intervention. The year of funding, type of activity (eg, R01, R34, and so on) and funding were noted. Results We identified 13 categories of strategies employed in funded smartphone intervention apps. Most grants included either one (35.0%) or two (39.0%) intervention approaches. These included artificial intelligence (57 apps), bionic adaptation (33 apps), cognitive and behavioral therapies (68 apps), contingency management (24 apps), education and information (85 apps), enhanced motivation (50 apps), facilitating, reminding and referring (60 apps), gaming and gamification (52 apps), mindfulness training (18 apps), monitoring and feedback (192 apps), norm setting (7 apps), skills training (85 apps) and social support and social networking (59 apps). The most frequently observed grant types included Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) grants (40.8%) and Research Project Grants (R01s) (26.2%). The number of grants funded increased through the five-year period from 60 in 2014 to 112 in 2018. Conclusions Smartphone intervention apps are increasingly competitive for NIH funding. They reflect a wide diversity of approaches that have significant potential for use in applied settings.
23
Reyes, A. A., G. Alle, R. Tanten, M. Scolnik, E. Soriano, G. Berbotto, M. Haye, et al. "POS1188 COVID-19 IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATIC DISEASES: COMPARISON OF DATA FROM THE ARGENTINE REGISTRY (SAR-COVID), WITH THE LATIN AMERICAN AND GLOBAL REGISTRY (GLOBAL RHEUMATOLOGY ALLIANCE)." Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 80, Suppl 1 (May 19, 2021): 875.2–876. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-eular.1458.
Full textAbstract:
Background:SARS CoV-2 infection has recently burst onto the global scene, and the knowledge of the course of this infection in patients with rheumatic diseases receiving immunomodulatory treatment is still insufficient. The Argentine Society of Rheumatology (SAR) designed a national registry called SAR-COVID in order to get to assess our reality.Objectives:To identify the particular characteristics of patients with rheumatic diseases and COVID-19 in Argentina (SAR-COVID Registry), and to compare them with the data reported at the Latin American and Global level (Global International Alliance Rheum-COVID Registry).Methods:A national, multicenter, prospective and observational registry was carried out. Patients older than 18 years, with a diagnosis of rheumatic disease and SARS-CoV-2 infection by PCR or serology, were included between August 13, 2020 and January 17, 2021. Demographic data, underlying rheumatic disease (activity of the disease, current treatment), comorbidities, clinical-laboratory characteristics of the SARS-CoV-2 infection, as well as received treatments (pharmacological, oxygen therapy / ventilatory support) and outcomes (hospitalization, mortality) were recorded. The characteristics of the included patients were compared with the data reported at the Latin American and global level. Descriptive statistics were performed. Comparisons between groups were made using ANOVA, chi2 or Fisher’s test, according to the type of variable.Results:Four hundred sixty-five patients from Argentina, 74 patients from Latin America and 583 from the rest of the world were included, mostly women (79.6%, 73% and 71% respectively), with a mean age of 50.2 (SD 15.3), 53.5 (DE 15.6) and 55.8 (15.5), years respectively. The most frequent rheumatic diseases in the three groups were rheumatoid arthritis (43.9%, 35%, and 39%) and systemic lupus erythematosus (16.1%, 22%, and 14%) (Table 1).In Argentina, fewer patients received specific pharmacological treatment for COVID-19 (40.9%, 68% and 43% respectively, p <0.0001), and there was a lower requirement of NIMV / IMV (Non-Invasive Mechanical Ventilation/Invasive Mechanical Ventilation) than in the rest of Latin America and the world (10.5% vs 31% vs 13%, p <0.0001).Hospitalization was lower in Argentina than in the rest of Latin America (37.4% vs 61% p 0.0002) and of the world (37.4% vs 45% p 0.0123), and mortality was numerically lower in Argentina, but without statistically significant differences between the three groups (6.9%, 12% and 11%; p 0.6311). Most of the patients, (86.9%) did not present any complications in Argentina, with a statistically significant difference with the rest of the groups (62% and 77%, p <0.0001) (Graph 1).Conclusion:The patients with rheumatic diseases and SARS-CoV-2 infection reported in this argentinian registry received less specific pharmacological treatment for COVID-19, presented fewer complications and required less ventilatory support, than those reported in the Latinoamerican and Global registry. However, no statistically significant differences were observed in terms of mortality.Graph 1.Main outcomes and evolution of patients with rheumatic disease and COVID-19.References:[1]Stokes, Erin K, Zambrano, Laura D, Anderson, Kayla N, et al. Coronavirus Disease 2019 Case Surveillance - United States, January 22-May 30, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep; 69(24): 759-765, 2020 Jun 19.[2]Mehta P, McAuley DF, Brown M, et al. COVID-19: consider cytokine storm síndromes and immunosuppression. Lancet 2020;395:1033–4.[3]Gianfrancesco M, et al. Characteristics associated with hospitalisation for COVID-19 in people with rheumatic disease: data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician-reported registry. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79:859–866.[4]Manuel F. Ugarte-Gil, et al. Characteristics associated with Covid-19 in patients with Rheumatic Disease in Latin America. Global Rheumatology. Septiembre 2020.Disclosure of Interests:Alvaro Andres Reyes Grant/research support from: “Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data.”, Gelsomina Alle Grant/research support from: “Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data.”, Romina Tanten Grant/research support from: “Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data.”, Marina Scolnik Grant/research support from: “Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data.”, Enrique Soriano Grant/research support from: “Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data.”, Guillermo Berbotto Grant/research support from: “Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data.”, Maria Haye Grant/research support from: “Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data.”, María Julieta Gamba Grant/research support from: “Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data.”, Romina Nieto Grant/research support from: “Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data.”, Mercedes García Grant/research support from: “Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data.”, Veronica Savio Grant/research support from: “Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data.”, Luciana Gonzalez Lucero Grant/research support from: “Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data.”, Paula Alba Grant/research support from: “Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data.”, Lorena Takashima Grant/research support from: “Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data.”, FABIAN RISUEÑO Grant/research support from: “Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data.”, Luciana CASALLA Grant/research support from: “Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data.”, Natalia Cucchiaro Grant/research support from: “Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data.”, Ana Bertoli Grant/research support from: “Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data.”, Sabrina POrta Grant/research support from: “Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data.”, Carla Maldini Grant/research support from: “Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data.”, Rosana Gallo Grant/research support from: “Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data.”, Cecilia Goizueta Grant/research support from: “Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data.”, Eugenia Picco Grant/research support from: “Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data.”, Rosana Quintana Grant/research support from: “Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data.”, Karen Roberts Grant/research support from: “Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data.”, Carolina Ayelen Isnardi Grant/research support from: “Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data.”, Guillermo Pons-Estel Grant/research support from: “Unrestricted grants: Pfizer, Abbvie, Elea Phoenix. None of them have access to patient data.”
24
Riley, William T., Katrina Bibb, Sara Hargrave, and Paula Fearon. "Publication rates from biomedical and behavioral and social science R01s funded by the National Institutes of Health." PLOS ONE 15, no. 11 (November 13, 2020): e0242271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242271.
Full textAbstract:
Prior research has shown a serious lack of research transparency resulting from the failure to publish study results in a timely manner. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has increased its use of publication rate and time to publication as metrics for grant productivity. In this study, we analyze the publications associated with all R01 and U01 grants funded from 2008 through 2014, providing sufficient time for these grants to publish their findings, and identify predictors of time to publication based on a number of variables, including if a grant was coded as a behavioral and social sciences research (BSSR) grant or not. Overall, 2.4% of the 27,016 R01 and U01 grants did not have a publication associated with the grant within 60 months of the project start date, and this rate of zero publications was higher for BSSR grants (4.6%) than for non-BSSR grants (1.9%). Mean time in months to first publication was 15.2 months, longer for BSSR grants (22.4 months) than non-BSSR grants (13.6 months). Survival curves showed a more rapid reduction of risk to publish from non-BSSR vs BSSR grants. Cox regression models showed that human research (vs. animal, neither, or both) and clinical trials research (vs. not) are the strongest predictors of time to publication and failure to publish, but even after accounting for these and other predictors, BSSR grants continued to show longer times to first publication and greater risk of no publications than non-BSSR grants. These findings indicate that even with liberal criteria for publication (any publication associated with a grant), a small percentage of R01 and U01 grantees fail to publish in a timely manner, and that a number of factors, including human research, clinical trial research, child research, not being an early stage investigator, and conducting behavioral and social sciences research increase the risk of time to first publication.
25
Kaur, Mehak, Lana Bridi, Dahlia Kaki, Behnan Albahsahli, Nissma Bencheikh, Altaf Saadi, Gretchen Bandoli, Cheryl A. M. Anderson, Alissa Bernstein Sideman, and Tala Al-Rousan. "Funding for Refugee Health Research From the National Institutes of Health Between 2000 and 2020." JAMA Network Open 7, no. 1 (January 10, 2024): e2350837. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.50837.
Full textAbstract:
ImportanceThe US has historically resettled more refugees than any other country, with over 3.5 million refugees since 1980. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest public funder of biomedical research and development, but its role in mitigating many health disparities refugees experience through its funded research remains unknown.ObjectiveTo examine the NIH’s research funding patterns on refugee health research over the last 2 decades.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsSecondary analysis of NIH-funded grants between 2000 and 2020 using a cross-sectional study design. The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools database was used to find relevant grants. Data were analyzed from November 2021 to September 2022.Main Outcomes and MeasuresNIH grants awarded by year, state, grant type, research area, funding institute, grant duration, and amount funded.ResultsOf 1.7 million NIH grants funded over the 20-year study period, only 78 addressed refugee health. Funded grants were mostly training grants (23 grants [29%]), followed by hypothesis-driven research (R01 grants; 22 grants [28%]), pilot or preliminary investigation proposals (13 grants [17%]), and other types of grants (20 grants [26%]). The most studied research domain was mental health (36 grants [46%]), followed by refugee family dynamics and women’s and children’s health (14 grants [18%]). A total of 26 grants (33%) were funded by the National Institute of Mental Health and 15 (19%) were funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Most grants were US-based (60 grants [76%]) and the state of Massachusetts received the greatest amount of funding ($14 825 852 [18%]). In 2020, the NIH allocated about $2.3 million to refugee health research, or less than 0.01% of its $42 billion budget that year. The number of grants funded in each time period did not always reflect changes in the number of refugees resettled in the US over the years.Conclusions and RelevanceThis cross-sectional study found that there remain significant gaps in the understanding of and interventions in the health research needs of refugees locally and along the migratory route. To close these gaps, the NIH should increase its investments in comprehensive studies assessing the physical, mental, and social well-being of this expanding population. This can be achieved by ensuring that all NIH institutes allocate budgets specifically for refugee health research and extend support for the training of refugee researchers.
26
Langerbeins, Petra, Jasmin Bahlo, Christina Rhein, Paula Cramer, Anna-Maria Fink, Natali Pflug, Julia von Tresckow, et al. "Ibrutinib in Early Stage CLL: Preliminary Safety Results of a Placebo-Controlled Phase III Study." Blood 126, no. 23 (December 3, 2015): 2934. http://dx.doi.org/10.1182/blood.v126.23.2934.2934.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Introduction Observation (watch and wait) is the standard of care for patients with asymptomatic early stage CLL. Prognostic scores can be used to predict the outcome for high-risk subgroups that have rapid disease progression and poor survival. So far early treatment intervention failed to improve survival. However with development of novel targeted drugs treatment of high-risk CLL has improved. Thus, the risk-stratified management of early stage CLL needs to be re-evaluated. The CLL12-trial is the first prospective, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial investigating whether ibrutinib improves event-free survival (EFS) and therefore time to therapy in early stage CLL with risk of disease progression defined by a comprehensive prognostic score (Langerbeins et al, Future Oncol, 2015). Methods In this ongoing trial subjects with confirmed asymptomatic Binet stage A CLL are risk stratified according to the CLL-score (Pflug et al, Blood, 2014). Whereas low-risk patients are being observed (watch & wait), intermediate to very high-risk patients are randomized 1:1 to receive either treatment with ibrutinib at a daily dose of 420mg or placebo. A cycle is defined as 28 calendar days. Primary endpoint is EFS defined as the time between randomization until progressive disease, subsequent CLL-treatment or death. The trial is registered at www.clinicialtrialsregister.eu(EudraCT 2013-003211-22). Results At submission of the abstract, a total of 327 patients have been screened. Main reasons for screening failure (N=65) were violation of in-/exclusion criteria (N=32), withdrawal of consent (N=24) and incomplete screening (N=9). Patients were stratified using the prognostic score as follows: low (score 0-2, N=82), intermediate (score 3-5, N=125), high (score 6-10, N=39) and very high risk (score 11-14, N=6). Low-risk patients were allocated to the observational arm. The remaining 170 patients were randomized 1:1 to the experimental arm. Thus far, a total of 587 cycles have been administered with a median treatment duration of 4 cycles per patient. 46 patients have stopped the treatment prematurely. Reasons for early discontinuation were refusal of further treatment (N=26), toxicity (N=10), disease progression (N=6), concomitant use of oral anticoagulants (N=3) and lung cancer (N=1). 26 serious adverse events (SAE) including two suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions (SUSAR) have been reported for both treatment arms (placebo vs. ibrutinib): cardiac disorders (N=6), infections (N=9), nervous system disorders (N=2), vascular disorders (N=2), musculoskeletal disorders (N=2), acute renal failure (N=1), vertigo (N=1), sigmadiverticulitis (N=1), sacrumfracture (N=1), and small cell lung cancer (N=1). 15 of the reported SAE's were deemed related to the study medication. The first SUSAR was a non-ST elevation myocardial infarction in an 82-year old male patient with high comorbidity score (CIRS=6) including known coronary heart disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus and obesity. The second SUSAR was cerebral seizure secondary to subdural bleeding reported in a 78-year old male patient with high CIRS (N=12) and concomitant use of rivaroxaban. To minimize bleeding risk the study was amended to exclude patients using novel, oral anticoagulants. Subjects receiving direct Xa-inhibitors either changed the anticoagulant or stopped the experimental treatment. Conclusion Clinical observation has been the standard of care for early stage CLL ever since. This is the first safety report of a recruiting placebo-controlled phase III trial investigating if targeted treatment with ibrutinib delays time to first therapy in early stage CLL patients. SAE's are consistent with those previously reported for ibrutinib. Concomitant use of oral anticoagulants is prohibited due to an increased risk of bleeding. This may be seen differently in trials where patients already fulfill treatment criteria. Updated safety data will be presented at the meeting. Data from randomized first-line trials in advanced CLL suggests administering the most efficacious treatment upfront to achieve longterm-remissions and prolongation of survival. Efficacy data of the CLL12 trial will be available in 2016 and will hopefully answer this question for early stage patients and guide future management of this subgroup. Disclosures Langerbeins: Mundipharma: Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Hoffmann-LaRoche: Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Ibrutinib in early stage Binet A CLL. Rhein:Janssen: Other: travel grants. Cramer:Astellas: Other: Travel grant; Gilead: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Hoffman LaRoche: Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Glaxo Smith Klein/Novartis: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Other: Travel grant. Fink:Roche: Honoraria, Other: travel grant. Pflug:Celgene: Other: Travel grant. von Tresckow:Celgene: Other: travel grants; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Research Funding; Hoffman-LaRoche: Other: travel grants, Research Funding. Stilgenbauer:AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Hoffman-LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Other: travel grants, Research Funding. Eckart:Gilead: Honoraria; Roche: Other: travel grant. Balser:Iomedico: Other: travel grant; Janssen: Consultancy; Roche: Other: travel grant. Wendtner:Celege: Consultancy, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Glaxo-SmithKline: Consultancy, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Hoffmann-LaRoche: Consultancy, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Other: travel grants, Research Funding. Fischer:Roche: Other: Travel Grants. Eichhorst:AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: travel grant, Research Funding; Hoffman-LaRoche: Consultancy, Other: travel grant, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: travel grant, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: travel grant, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Other: travel grant, Research Funding. Hallek:Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Board, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Board, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Board, Research Funding; Boehringher Ingelheim: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Board; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Board, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Board, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Board, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Speakers Bureau and/or Advisory Board, Research Funding.
27
Dakhil, ZA. "Diversity in the european association of cardiovascular imaging (EACVI) research and training grants: gender, geographic and economic perspectives." European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging 23, Supplement_1 (February 1, 2022). http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jeab289.302.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background Training and research grants are crucial for professional and academic advancement especially in a rapidly evolving specialty like cardiac imaging. Equity, inclusion and diversity in funding research and training are fundamental in achieving research and training excellence. No prior data evaluated the diversity in the research and training grants awarded by international cardiovascular societies. Purpose Current analysis aimed to evaluate the distribution of awarded EACVI grants according to the country and gender of the grantsˈ winners. Methods Official ESC website was searched for names of EACVI research and training grantsˈ winners, gender, and affiliating country as well as hosting country of the awardee were documented. If any of this data was missed in the ESC website, then the awardeesˈ gender and affiliation were searched via google scholar, ResearchGate and LinkedIn platforms. The countries of the awardees were classified according to the continent and World Bank Economic classification [High income (HIC), middle (MIC) and low income (LIC) countries]. Results A total of 57 EACVI grants[36 research grants (from 2009 to 2021) and 21 training grants (from 2015 to 2021)] were analysed. Women won 54.38% of total grants [55.56% of research grants and 52.38% of training grants]. Winners of research grants were from HIC and MIC in 63.89% and 36.11% respectively, while winners of training grants were from HIC and MIC in 66.67% and 33.33% respectively. Winners of research grants were from Europe in 80.55%, and Asia in 16.66%, while winners of training grants were from Europe in 66.67% and Asia in 19.04%. The most common EACVI research grant hosting countries were Belgium (27.77%), UK (22.22%), Netherlands and Italy (16.66% for each), while the most common EACVI training grant hosting countries were UK (52.38%), Italy (23.8%) and Belgium (9.52%). Conclusions Women were well represented in EACVI research and training grants. Yet, both low-income countries and non-European countries were remarkably under-represented in EACVI grants. Considering the high burden of cardiovascular diseases in LIC and MIC, every effort should be made to increasingly include cardiologists from these countries in research and training opportunities to achieve the main ESC mission of decreasing the cardiovascular disease burden worldwide beyond the limits of geography. Abstract Figure. Abstract Figure.
28
"Research Grants." International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery 6, no. 6 (November 1996): 19.3–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.33589/6.6.19c.
Full text
29
"Research grants." Power Engineering Journal 12, no. 1 (February 1, 1998): 15–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1049/pe:19980104.
Full text
30
"Research grants." Power Engineering Journal 12, no. 2 (April 1, 1998): 71–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1049/pe:19980206.
Full text
31
"Research grants." Power Engineering Journal 12, no. 3 (June 1, 1998): 123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1049/pe:19980308.
Full text
32
"Research grants." Power Engineering Journal 12, no. 4 (August 1, 1998): 171–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1049/pe:19980408.
Full text
33
"Research grants." Power Engineering Journal 12, no. 5 (October 1, 1998): 237–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1049/pe:19980508.
Full text
34
"Research grants." Power Engineering Journal 12, no. 6 (December 1, 1998): 267–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1049/pe:19980604.
Full text
35
"Research grants." Power Engineering Journal 13, no. 1 (February 1, 1999): 13–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1049/pe:19990105.
Full text
36
"Research grants." Power Engineering Journal 13, no. 2 (April 1, 1999): 79–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1049/pe:19990206.
Full text
37
"Research grants." Power Engineering Journal 13, no. 3 (June 1, 1999): 171–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1049/pe:19990312.
Full text
38
"Research grants." Power Engineering Journal 13, no. 4 (August 1, 1999): 211–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1049/pe:19990407.
Full text
39
"Research grants." Power Engineering Journal 13, no. 5 (October 1, 1999): 257–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1049/pe:19990507.
Full text
40
"Research grants." Power Engineering Journal 14, no. 2 (April 1, 2000): 46–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1049/pe:20000203.
Full text
41
"Research grants." Power Engineering Journal 16, no. 5 (October 1, 2002): 249–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1049/pe:20020508.
Full text
42
"Research Grants." Anthropology News 29, no. 3 (March 1988): 15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/an.1988.29.3.15.2.
Full text
43
"Research Grants." Journal of the Intensive Care Society 7, no. 1 (April 2006): 8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/175114370600700105.
Full text
44
"Research Grants." Anthropology News 39, no. 8 (November 1998): 26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/an.1998.39.8.26.11.
Full text
45
"Research Grants." Occupational Therapy Journal of Research 12, no. 4 (July 1992): 256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/153944929201200405.
Full text
46
"Research Grants." Journal of Hospital Infection 72, no. 1 (May 2009): 96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0195-6701(09)00102-9.
Full text
47
"Research Grants." Journal of Hospital Infection 72, no. 2 (June 2009): 191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0195-6701(09)00160-1.
Full text
48
"Research Grants." Journal of Hospital Infection 75, no. 2 (June 2010): 150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0195-6701(10)00160-x.
Full text
49
"Research grants." International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia 5, no. 2 (April 1996): 143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0959-289x(96)80020-3.
Full text
50
"Research grants." International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia 7, no. 2 (April 1998): 143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0959-289x(98)90018-8.
Full text