Declining Pediatric Representation in NIH Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Funding, 2020-2024
Phillips, V.; Woodwal, P.
Show abstract
BackgroundArtificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) are among the fastest-growing domains in NIH research funding, but whether children have shared equitably in this expansion is unknown. We characterized pediatric representation in NIH AI/ML funding from fiscal years (FY) 2020 to 2024. MethodsNIH grant data were obtained from Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results bulk files for FY2020 to FY2024. AI/ML grants were identified using the NIH Research, Condition, and Disease Categorization "Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence" category, and pediatric grants using the "Pediatric" category. Subprojects were excluded. Grants were deduplicated within each fiscal year by core project number for trend analyses and across all years retaining the most recent fiscal year for cross-sectional totals. Disease areas were identified by keyword searches of titles and abstracts. ResultsAcross FY2020 to FY2024, 5,624 unique NIH AI/ML grants totaling $3,371 million were identified. Of these, 836 grants (14.9%) were classified as pediatric, representing $401 million (11.9%) of total NIH AI/ML funding. Although this share was consistent with the historically reported overall NIH pediatric funding baseline of approximately 10% to 12%, it remained substantially below the US pediatric population share of approximately 22%. The pediatric share of NIH AI/ML funding declined from 12.3% in FY2020 to 10.8% in FY2024, despite growth in absolute pediatric funding. Indexed to FY2020, pediatric AI/ML funding grew approximately 2.6-fold compared with 3.0-fold growth in the total portfolio. Across disease areas, unadjusted adult/general-to-pediatric funding ratios ranged from 2.0-fold in mental health to 9.8-fold in cancer. ConclusionsPediatric representation in NIH AI/ML funding remained low and declined over time as the overall portfolio expanded. These findings suggest that growth in NIH AI/ML investment has not been matched by proportional gains for pediatric research.
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Analysis of the Health Economics Portfolio Funded by the National Institutes of Health in Response to Published Guidance 90%
- Relative contribution of COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection to population-level seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 spike antibodies in a large integrated health system 90%
- Researching COVID to enhance recovery (RECOVER) pediatric study protocol: Rationale, objectives and design 89%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health of Adults in the United States: A 20-Year National Health Interview Survey Analysis, 1999-2018 85%
- Protection afforded by the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines in fully vaccinated cohorts with and without prior infection 84%
- Durability of anti-Spike antibodies in the infant after maternal COVID-19 vaccination 84%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.