ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025
Characteristics of participants in the national research mentoring network studies.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Erratum: Characteristics of participants in the national research mentoring network studies - CORRIGENDUM.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Erratum: Characteristics of participants in the national research mentoring network studies - ERRATUM.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: This paper presents a descriptive analysis of common data collected across 11 independent studies in the National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN) from 2019 to 2024, focusing on participant demographics and participation in training programs prior to NRMN. Methods: Analyses focused on data from 6,197 survey responses collected primarily at baseline. Descriptive analyses examined participants' demographic characteristics (gender, combined race/ethnicity, disability, parent/guardian education, and career stage) and participation in training programs prior to NRMN. Results: The majority of respondents were female (70%). Most respondents identified as White (46%), Black (23%), Asian (18%), and Hispanic (17%). Most respondents (91%) did not report a disability. In terms of career stage, 55% were undergraduates. Sixty-three percent reported that their parent or guardian had completed a bachelor's degree. Regarding participation in training programs prior to NRMN, 60% had participated in mentor training, and 62% reported involvement in research training activities such as workshops, field experiences, and conferences. Patterns of participation in prior mentorship or research program varied across demographic characteristics. Conclusions: The NRMN common data reveal the backgrounds of over 6,000 participants engaged in mentorship intervention studies across the biomedical workforce. The dataset includes participants from diverse demographics and career stages with varying levels of participation in prior mentor training and exposure to research training programs. This extensive dataset provides a valuable opportunity to explore the long-term impact of mentorship on the biomedical workforce in future research.
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.