ArticleJCI insight2022
Predoctoral MD-PhD grants as indicators of future NIH funding success.
Article in JCI insight, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- When Training Pipelines Break: What NIH F31 Terminations Mean for the Future of Public Health Research.Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education · 2026Article
- Trends in Industry-Sponsored Research Payments to Otolaryngologist Principal Investigators.The Laryngoscope · 2026Article
- Degree Background and NIH K-to-R01 Transition Among Investigators Using Experimental Neuroscience to Advance Psychiatry.Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2026Article
- Development and evaluation of a symposium model for building physician-scientist skills, connections, and persistence.JCI insight · 2025Article
- Prioritizing mental health support for physician-scientist trainees.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Trends in Specialty Training and National Institutes of Health Funding Among Surgeon-Scientists.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2024Article
- Changes in self-confidence in professional, personal, and scientific skills by gender during physician-scientist training at the University of Pittsburgh.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- New insights into an old question: can the MD-PhD physician-scientist pipeline be improved?JCI insight · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
MD-PhD trainees constitute an important source of physician-scientists. Persistence on this challenging path is facilitated by success in garnering independent (R grant) support from the NIH. Published research tracks academic appointments and global R01 success for MD-PhD trainees but has not included information on future funding success of individual MD-PhD predoctoral grant holders. Here, we used data from the NIH RePORTER database to identify and track the funding trajectory of physician-scientists who received predoctoral grant support through the F30 mechanism, which is specific for dual-degree candidates. Male and female F30 awardees did not differ in their success in garnering K (postdoctoral training) grants, but, among F30 grant awardees, men were 2.6 times more likely than women to receive R funding. These results underscore the need for analysis of factors that contribute to the disproportionate loss of NIH-supported female physician-scientists between the predoctoral F30 and the independent R grant-supported stages.
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.