Browsing by Subject "Research productivity"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Analysis of pre-residency research productivity, dual degree status, and gender distribution of underrepresented minorities among a current United States radiation oncology junior resident class
    (Elsevier, 2019-04-05) McClelland, Shearwood, III; Woodhouse, Kristina D.; Jaboin, Jerry J.; Zellars, Richard C.; Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine
    Background: Among the most competitive medical subspecialties, representation of underrepresented minorities (African-American race and/or Hispanic ethnicity) among resident trainees has historically been low compared to their United States Census general population representation. Research productivity and dual degree status may impact residency applicant competitiveness. To date, such an analysis has yet to be performed in Radiation Oncology. Methods: A list of radiation oncology residents from the graduating class of 2022 was obtained through internet searches. Demographics included were gender and dual degree status. Research productivity was calculated using the number of pre-residency peer-reviewed publications (PRP). Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis. Results: Of the 179 residents evaluated from the 2022 class, eleven (6.1%) were underrepresented minorities. Compared to the remainder of the class, underrepresented minorities had a lower proportion of men (63.6% versus 69.3%), a higher proportion of dual degrees (45.5% versus 28.6%), and a lower proportion of MD-PhD degrees (9.1% versus 17.2%). Underrepresented minorities had a higher proportion of residents with at least two PRP (72.7% versus 57.1%) and a lower proportion of residents with no PRP (18.2% versus 24.4%). None of these differences reached statistical significance (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Underrepresented minorities were comparable to the remainder of their Radiation Oncology resident class regarding gender distribution, dual degrees status, and likelihood of having at least two peer-reviewed publications cited in PubMed during the calendar year of residency application. Further studies will be needed to determine how these findings translate into future scholarly activity and post-graduate career choice.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    NIH Funding, Research Productivity, and Scientific Impact: a 20-Year Study
    (Springer, 2022) Agarwal, Rajiv; Tu, Wanzhu; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background: The Research Project Grant (R01) is the oldest grant mechanism used by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Receiving an R01 award is often taken as a sign of scientific success. We presented normative data on multiple productivity and impact metrics for a more objective assessment of funded grants' scientific success. Methods: All initial R01 grants awarded by NIH in the year 2000 were prospectively followed and evaluated using the numbers of publications and citations, as well as the h-indices at the grant level. We examined the variability, time trends, and relations among these metrics to better understand the funded projects' cumulative output and impact. Results: In the 20 years since initial funding, 4451 R01 grants generated a total of 55,053 publications. These publications were cumulatively cited 3,705,553 times over 736,811 citation years. The median number of publications was 8 (25th, 75th percentiles 4, 17) per grant for the entire 20-year duration. The median number of citations and the median h-index were 441 (25th, 75th percentiles 156, 1061) and 7 (25th, 75th percentiles 4, 13) per grant, respectively. The time courses of publication, citation, and accumulation of h-index were highly variable among the awarded grants. Although the metrics were correlated within an award, they reflected the grant's success in different domains. Conclusion: Numbers of publications, citations, and h-indices vary greatly among funded R01 grants. When used together, these metrics provide a more complete picture of the productivity and long-term impact of a funded grant.