ArticleeLife2018
The NIH must reduce disparities in funding to maximize its return on investments from taxpayers.
Article in eLife, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing the outputs of intramural and extramural grants funded by National Institutes of Health.eLife · 2026Article
- Breaking the gatekeepers: how AI will revolutionize scientific funding.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Extending the case for a "health disparities research industrial complex": A response to Ezell.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2024Article
- Using focused ethnography to inform biomedical research infrastructure enhancement at primarily undergraduate institutions.Advances in physiology education · 2024Review
- National Institutes of Health Funding Gaps for Principal Investigators.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Commentary: American Association for Thoracic Surgery foundation research grants: An opportunity to shape the future of cardiothoracic surgery.JTCVS open · 2022Article
- Review
- NIH funding trends for neurosurgeon-scientists from 1993-2017: Biomedical workforce implications for neurooncology.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2021Article
- Article
- The Participation and Motivations of Grant Peer Reviewers: A Comprehensive Survey.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Putting advanced microscopy in the hands of biologists.Nature methods · 2019Article
- Opinion: The National Institutes of Health needs to better balance funding distributions among US institutions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
New data from the NIH reveal that the scientific return on its sponsored research reaches a maximum at around $400,000 of annual support per principal investigator. We discuss the implications of this 'sweet spot' for funding policy, and propose that the NIH should limit both the minimum and maximum amount of funding per researcher.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.