Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40021598›Full record

ReviewMolecular and cellular biochemistry2025

An open letter to the NIH cardiovascular study section reviewers.

Ali J Marian

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular and cellular biochemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Ali J MarianMolecular Medicine (Genetics) and Internal Medicine (Cardiology), Institute of Molecular Medicine, and the Department of Medicine, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, TX, USA. Ali.J.Marian@uth.tmc.edu.

Funding

Cell type-Specific Therapeutic Targeting of canonical WNT Pathway in Arrhythmogenic CardiomyopathyR01HL151737 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI MARIAN, ALI J · 2020 to 2023
$2.0M
National Institute of Aging R01AG082751NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL151737
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The reviewers who serve at the National Institute of Health (NIH) study sections are in the unique position of identifying the most scientifically meritorious grant applications for consideration for funding. Consequently, the reviewers guide the direction of scientific discoveries in the US, which ultimately translate to patient care. Recently many investigators have expressed concerns about the quality of the reviews that they received from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) study section reviewers. I discuss some of these concerns, identify some of the deficiencies, and make suggestions to the reviewers on how to improve their review of the grant applications.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchNational Institutes of Health (U.S.)Peer Review, ResearchHumansNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (U.S.)United StatesGrant applicationNational Institute of HealthPeer reviewStudy section

Identifiers

PMID40021598

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.