Clinical Trial Components of NIH Career Development Awards: Supporting the Nation's Future Trialists
Derington, C. G.; Cervantes, L.; Allen, L. A.; Trinkley, K. E.; Huebschmann, A. G.; Ho, P. M.
Show abstract
In 2027, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will no longer support costs associated with clinical trials (CT) for career development (K) awards. NIH's CT definition encompasses many types of research, from early-stage pilot work through definitive studies. The types and sizes of trials K awardees conduct have not been described, which could inform ongoing policy changes relevant to the next generation of clinical trialists. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of NIH RePORTER data to characterize the types and sizes of CTs supported by NIH K01, K08, and K23 awards funded in fiscal years 2024-2025 under a CT Required or CT Optional funding opportunity announcement (FOA), with non-missing abstract text. A rule-based classification scheme applied to free-text abstracts categorized each award into 5 mutually exclusive trial types: pilot/feasibility/proof-of-concept, efficacy/effectiveness, trial confirmed with type unclear, other (mechanistic, ancillary, or phase I/II), or no trial-specific language identified. Trial size was assessed among abstracts reporting an explicit, manually verified sample size. Of 1336 unique awards funded under CT Required (n=1051) or CT Optional (n=285) FOAs, 815 (61.0%) were classified as pilot, feasibility, or proof-of-concept studies, and 55 (4.1%) as efficacy or effectiveness studies; 204 (15.3%) had a confirmed trial of unclear type, 41 (3.1%) were other, and 221 (16.5%) had no trial-specific language. Among CT Required awards, 730 (69.5%) were pilot, feasibility, or proof-of-concept work. Among 273 awards (20.4%) with a verified sample size, the median was 60 participants (IQR, 44-80), with 236 (86.4%) enrolling [≤]100 participants. Given these findings that CT within NIH K awards are generally small and early-stage, NIH's decision to no longer support trial costs may adversely affect the scientist development pipeline.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Exploring scalable assessment methods for terminated trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cohort analysis of German and Californian trials 94%
- Analysis of the Health Economics Portfolio Funded by the National Institutes of Health in Response to Published Guidance 93%
- Analysis of clinical trial registry entry histories using the novel R package cthist 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evidence Supporting EMA Drug Approvals (2020-2023): A Cross-Sectional Study of Trial Design and Outcomes 91%
- Dynamic methods for ongoing assessment of site-level risk in risk-based monitoring of clinical trials: a scoping review 91%
- Design and implementation of the multi-arm, multi-stage Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 (TICO) platform master protocol: An Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) initiative 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Trials that turn from retrospectively registered to prospectively registered: A cohort study of ‘retroactively prospective’ clinical trial registration using history data 94%
- Supporting Reanalysis and Reuse of Clinical Trial Data: A Case Study 92%
- Operational Strategies among Infectious Disease Clinical Trial Sites During Pandemics: A Scoping Review 91%
Similar papers in this journal
"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.