ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparative analysis of organizational and leadership success factors associated with fast-growing biomedical research.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Life sciences discoveries drive public health improvement and consequently expanding research is great societal interest. The purpose of this study is to identify what measurable qualities of institutional culture point to fast growth of biomedical research. This cross-sectional study analyzed data on NIH funded research of 93,703 contact Principal Investigators (PIs) of 254 US research universities and institutions. The sample was ranked based on percentage growth of funding over a decade and subsequently split into an upper half of fast growers and lower half of controls. The multidimensional comparisons indicated that neither current funding levels nor academic classifications of organizations nor success in recruiting funded researchers appear to be useful identifiers of above average research growth. On the other hand, there is a significant inverse relationship between the percentage growth in funded research and the ratio of non-active versus active principal investigators. Here we show that the essence of most productive growth strategies is "support your own people" by helping past successful researchers to regain funding as PIs, increasing project size per PI, and internally raising PIs who were unfunded but become newly funded.
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.