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.

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.

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.

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.

Point-of-care technologies (POCTs) have grown increasingly prevalent in clinical and at-home settings, offering various rapid diagnostic capabilities. This study presents findings from a nationwide survey conducted between November 2023 and January 2024, capturing clinician perceptions of POCTs.

The survey was distributed via email to healthcare professionals through academic and industry listservs and through LinkedIn posts. A total of 159 responses were analyzed.

Core priorities, including accuracy, ease of use, and availability, remain consistently valued over the years. However, several perceived benefits, including continuous patient monitoring, diagnostic certainty, and patient management exhibited significant declines in agreement compared to previous years. Despite this, clinician perceptions of POCTs’ abilities to enhance patient–provider communication remained stable. Evolving concerns may reflect heightened expectations and greater scrutiny as these technologies become commonplace. Agreement that POCTs may undermine clinical expertise increases, while concerns related to reimbursement and usability decline. Pilot questions related to artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) indicated moderate openness to adopting AI-enhanced POCTs, particularly with tools offering novel clinical insights.

While POCTs continue to be an asset in clinical settings, the findings of this study suggest a shift in provider attitudes toward a more neutral standpoint. Limitations include a low response rate, self-selection, and missing demographic data from a subset of participants. Future surveys will further integrate AI/ML-related questions while prioritizing broader demographic and geographic reach.

Artificial intelligence (AI) technology is rapidly entering biomedical research, and there is a need to assess and develop curricula that address trainees’ learning objectives and interests. Studies of biomedical workforce development show that the prospective engagement of students in formulating educational objectives and activities improves motivation and learning outcomes. This study aimed to explore the educational applications of a novel AI-powered technology in undergraduate education.

A mixed-methods approach using elicitation interviews and cultural domain analysis was applied to identify the salience of ideas around the educational uses of Functional Unit State Identification & Navigation with Whole Slide Images (FUSION), an AI-powered cell-visualization technology. Interviews from 21 students were reduced to learning application statements and assessed for cultural salience and clustering for potential educational applications.

Saturation was reached after 11 interviews, and analysis resulted in eight clusters of 25 unique consensus-based statements. Students thought of the technology as a tool for cell analysis and measuring, but they also viewed applications for medical and K-12 education, public engagement, and note-keeping for technology research. Methodologically, our study demonstrates the potential of cultural consensus for learner-centered curriculum development.

Our findings suggest that trainees perceive many educational uses of FUSION, including those that fit traditional biomedical research curricula and translational applications. Trainees should be engaged in co-design to support and guide technology translation for educational use.

The study objective was to evaluate whether the formation and funding of team science-guided Integrated Clinical Research Ensembles (ICREs) enhance individual faculty productivity, measured by publication and impact factor adjusted citation rates. The setting was a multi-institutional NIH Clinical and Translational Science Award-supported hub.

Monthly faculty publication and impact factor adjusted citation rates were analyzed using data extracted from the hub-managed Faculty Collaboration Database (FCD). The FCD imports indexed publications for all faculty members across four academic institutions, drawing from PubMed and faculty curriculum vitae. Monthly publication counts were modeled using Poisson regression, fitted using generalized estimating equations to account for clustering of observed monthly publication rates of individual faculty. Publication rates were compared before and after ICRE formation and funding, and between faculty in and outside ICREs.

Before joining ensemble teams, ICRE faculty had an 87% higher monthly publication rate than non-ICRE faculty. As ICREs were funded, the monthly publication rate increased an average 72% compared to baseline levels and future citation rates determined by journal impact factors increased by 150%.

Faculty publication and citation rates significantly increased following ICRE funding, demonstrating the potential of structured team science models to boost academic productivity and influence. Faculty inclined to participate in team science through formalized ICREs were already among the more productive faculty.

Numerous efforts are focused on building the clinical and translational research (CTR) workforce. Approaches to evaluate CTR initiatives are varied, and efforts often rely on research project-level outcomes. This article applies an evaluation tool to capture individual-level data.

The study used a novel Researcher Investment Tool (RIT) to measure researchers’ experience as well as perceptions of institutional support, including an analysis based on researcher characteristics. The study also evaluated the RIT based on common measures, including a bibliometric indicator, investigator status, and percent time dedicated to research.

The RIT was administered to researchers who received funding or targeted research support from a CTR initiative. Mean scores were assessed by RIT section, domains/sub-domains, and for each item. Mean scores per section were compared across researcher characteristics using t-tests, and associations between common measures and average domain scores were tested using linear regression.

Thirty researchers completed all RIT items. RIT domain scores ranged from a high mean of 4.0 for the research skills domain to a low mean of 2.6 for researcher productivity and community engagement domains. Analysis of indicators of commonly used measures across domains suggest that researchers with a higher bibliometric score had more advanced research skills, service to profession, research productivity, and research collaboration (p < .05). New investigators had lower perceptions of institutional support (p < .05).

As an evaluation tool, the RIT captures individual-level data that may help to determine key areas of strength and opportunities for growth of a CTR program.

Community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) contributes significantly to mortality and healthcare costs worldwide. The use of guideline-concordant antibiotic therapy for CABP is associated with improved outcomes.

This was a retrospective cohort study of inpatients with CABP due to MRSA or P. aeruginosa in the All of Us database. The proportion of patients on guideline-concordant antibiotics or guideline-discordant antibiotics was compared within groups based upon patient age, sex, self-reported race, ethnicity, marital status, alcohol use, and tobacco use. Guideline concordance was determined using the 2019 IDSA/ATS CABP guidelines. Associations were further analyzed using multivariate logistic regression.

A total of 336 patients with CABP due to MRSA (152) or P. aeruginosa (184) were included. Guideline-concordant antibiotic therapy was prescribed to 70% of CABP-MRSA patients and for 57% of CABP-P. aeruginosa patients. Independently predictive factors of guideline-concordant antibiotic prescribing for CABP-P. aeruginosa patients were Non-Hispanic Black (NHB) vs. Non-Hispanic White (NHW) race (odds ratio = 0.30, 95% confidence interval = 0.12 – 0.75).

In the All of Us database, the majority of CABP-MRSA and CABP-P. aeruginosa patients were prescribed guideline-concordant antibiotic therapy. Race was independently predictive of guideline-concordant antibiotic therapy for patients with CABP-P. aeruginosa, but not CABP-MRSA. NHB patients were less likely to receive guideline-concordant antibiotic therapy than NHW patients when treated for CABP-P. aeruginosa.

Scientific teams that are comprised of different types of researchers have higher research productivity, and there is a need for evidence-based methods to improve the biomedical research workforce. Building Up a Biomedical Research Workforce (Building Up) was a multi-center, cluster-randomized, unblinded controlled trial with one intervention arm and one control arm, conducted at 25 United States academic medical centers. The authors tested the hypothesis that participants from backgrounds underrepresented in science who are randomized to the intervention will have greater numbers of peer-reviewed publications and increased Psychological Capital, compared to the control group.

The study included a 10-month intervention period and follow-up assessments occurring one, two, and three years after the intervention began. The intervention arm received a 10-month intervention with monthly meetings, near-peer mentoring, networking opportunities, and grant- and scientific-writing coursework. Participants in the control arm experienced the usual forms of mentoring, networking, and coursework that their institutions provided.

Of the 220 participants who completed the pre-intervention assessment (98% of all enrolled participants), 71% completed the post-intervention assessment at year 1, 60% at year 2, and 66% at year 3. Individuals in the intervention arm had significantly higher levels of self-efficacy, resilience, and optimism in the three years following the start of the intervention, compared to the control arm.

This finding suggests that the Building Up intervention can increase participants’ Psychological Capital.

Black or African Americans (AA) with Parkinson’s disease (PD) are underrepresented in both care and research and experience significant health disparities. The existing literature provides limited guidance on how to enhance the engagement of AA individuals in PD care and research, particularly from the perspectives of AA patients, care partners, and healthcare providers. This project aimed to (1) describe the use of Community Engagement (CE) Studios as a community-engaged research approach to inform culturally appropriate and inclusive research and (2) examine factors influencing AA engagement in PD-related activities.

We conducted three CE Studios: one with AA with PD and care partners (N = 6), one with healthcare providers of AA with PD (N = 8), and one with AA with PD, care partners, and healthcare providers (N = 4).

The CE Studios informed the design (e.g., cultural appropriateness) and conduct (e.g., accessibility) of the planned PD project, as well as identifying stakeholders to engage with, improving alignment between research and the AA community. We highlighted the importance of multifaceted factors, including environmental (e.g., segregation), biological (e.g., symptoms), sociocultural (e.g., not being invited), and behavioral (e.g., empowerment) domains, which influence AA engagement.

The CE Studios method is a feasible and useful approach for understanding the perspectives of AA in PD. It is possible to conduct an in-depth exploration of community perspectives by synthesizing comprehensive analyses and leveraging additional frameworks. These efforts include identifying barriers to engagement, recognizing locally relevant individuals, and refining PD-related care to enhance cultural appropriateness.

Travel distance is a key barrier for patients to participate in clinical trials or receive cancer care. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) is a major funder of cancer research infrastructure through grant programs like the NCI Cancer Center (NCICC) and NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP); however, the majority of US sites that care for people with cancer do not directly receive this funding.

Through geospatial analysis we examined patient distance to NCI-funded sites and evaluated demographic subgroups to identify potential disparities in access to research opportunities. We assessed whether new NCI support to previously unfunded sites could address identified barriers in access.

NCI-funded sites tend to be in urban centers and are less accessible to low-income or rural patients. Nearly 17% of the US population over 35 years old would have to drive over 100 miles to obtain care at an NCI-funded site; only 1.6% would be beyond that distance when non-funded sites are added. For those below poverty level, the proportions are 20.2% and 1.9%, respectively. Several US regions, including the South and Appalachia, have particularly limited access to NCI-funded sites despite high cancer incidence, and much of the West and Great Plains are distant from any cancer facilities.

NCI could address travel distance as a major barrier to research participation by expanding the geographical footprint of its infrastructure funding using existing institutions in areas with identified gaps. Geospatial analysis at the census tract level is recommended and geospatial visualization can help identify strategic areas for interventions.

Portfolio-level publication tracking collects research output from related programs. Tracking publications is imperative to evaluate the scholarly impact of a program, synthesize program findings, and document impact to funders. A valid tracking protocol increases data quality for accurate impact assessment, but there is little literature on publication tracking methods appropriate for assessing impact across multiple programs.

We tracked, managed, and evaluated publications from the National Institutes of Health-funded Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics - Underserved Populations, which included over 137 projects and a Coordination and Data Collection Center. During the four-year project, we deployed a quarterly self-report survey to project leads and conducted twice-monthly searches for grant-related publications. Search strategies comprised a simple search of project grant numbers and an enhanced search. We evaluated the sensitivity and positive predictive value of search strategies compared to the surveys.

Compared to the survey, the simple search was 21.5% to 27.4% sensitive with a positive predictive value between 81.1% and 95.8%. The enhanced search was 62.6% to 68.0% sensitive with a positive predictive value between 76.2% and 96.9%. Response rates declined over time from a maximum of 61.3% to a minimum of 32.8%.

The enhanced search increased specificity in identifying publications, but the survey was necessary to refine strategies and identify missed products. However, the enhanced search may have relieved participant burden in entering citations. These findings may be valuable for coordinating centers, academic departments, working groups, and other academic entities that must quantify the impact of their publications.