Critical Shortfall in NIH Support for Medical Physics Research.

Guillem Pratx, Wensha Yang, Matthew L Scarpelli

Abstract readPreprint

In one paragraph

Article in ArXiv, 2026. 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

3 authors.

Guillem PratxDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

Wensha YangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.

Matthew L ScarpelliDepartment of Medical Physics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This report summarizes changes in federal research funding to the medical physics community between FY24 and FY25. By linking the AAPM membership database with NIH RePORTER records, we quantified the distribution of NIH funding for projects led by AAPM researchers. Although total NIH funding to AAPM members remained relatively stable across the two years, the composition of that funding shifted substantially. Competing (new and renewal) awards declined 50%, driven largely by an 80% collapse in new R01 grants from the National Cancer Institute (NCI). In contrast, noncompeting continuation awards increased by 10%, following a shift in how NIH funds multi-year projects. These changes occurred in the context of widespread disruptions to NIH review and grantmaking, including delayed study sections and more stringent administrative requirements. Federal funding is essential to sustaining innovation, supporting early-stage investigators, and ensuring that patients receive the best possible care. The trends identified here raise concerns about the long-term vitality and stability of the medical physics research pipeline.

Identifiers

PMID41647207

PMCPMC12869383

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC0

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.