ArticlePloS one2018
Outcomes of early NIH-funded investigators: Experience of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Comparative analysis of organizational and leadership success factors associated with fast-growing biomedical research.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A thirty-year trend of increasing clinical orientation at the National Institutes of Health.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- An evaluation of programs to support new investigators at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases: Striking a balance with funding for established investigators.Evaluation and program planning · 2023Article
- Gender, Racial, and Ethnic and Inequities in Receipt of Multiple National Institutes of Health Research Project Grants.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Bibliometric Approach to Evaluating the Impact of a Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health K12 Research Career Development Program.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2022Article
- Award rate inequities in biomedical research.PloS one · 2022Article
- NIH funding trends for neurosurgeon-scientists from 1993-2017: Biomedical workforce implications for neurooncology.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2021Article
- Changes in the National Cancer Institute's R01 workforce: growth, aging, retention, and policy implications.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2021Review
- Grant Review Feedback: Appropriateness and Usefulness.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Perspective commentary from the Society for Pediatric Research: supporting early-stage pediatric physician-scientist success.Pediatric research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Survival of junior scientists in academic biomedical research is difficult in today's highly competitive funding climate. National Institute of Health (NIH) data on first-time R01 grantees indicate the rate at which early investigators drop out from a NIH-supported research career is most rapid 4 to 5 years from the first R01 award. The factors associated with a high risk of dropping out, and whether these factors impact all junior investigators equally, are unclear. We identified a cohort of 1,496 investigators who received their first R01-equivalent (R01-e) awards from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases between 2003 and 2010, and studied all their subsequent NIH grant applications through 2016. Ultimately, 57% of the cohort were successful in obtaining new R01-e funding, despite highly competitive conditions. Among those investigators who failed to compete successfully for new funding (43%), the average time to dropping out was 5 years. Investigators who successfully obtained new grants showed remarkable within-person consistency across multiple grant submission behaviors, including submitting more applications per year, more renewal applications, and more applications to multiple NIH Institutes. Funded investigators appeared to have two advantages over their unfunded peers at the outset: they had better scores on their first R01-e grants and they demonstrated an early ability to write applications that would be scored, not triaged. The cohort rapidly segregated into two very different groups on the basis of PI consistency in the quality and frequency of applications submitted after their first R01-e award. Lastly, we identified a number of specific demographic factors, intitutional characteristics, and grant submission behaviors that were associated with successful outcomes, and assessed their predictive value and relative importance for the likelihood of obtaining additional NIH funding.
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.