MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085088651 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0b013e318230a18f

Disparities in NIH funding for epilepsy research

2011· article· en· W2085088651 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kimford J. Meador, Jacqueline A. French, David W. Loring, Page B. Pennell

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeEpilepsy SocietyNational Institutes of HealthEpilepsiatutkimussäätiöKyowa Hakko KirinEpilepsy FoundationEisaiUniversity of OxfordPfizerMarinus PharmaceuticalsNeuroPaceValeant Pharmaceuticals InternationalMilken Family FoundationGlaxoSmithKlineMyriad GeneticsAmerican Epilepsy Society
KeywordsEpilepsyAmyotrophic lateral sclerosisStroke (engine)MedicineDiseasePsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using data from NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT) and recently assembled prevalence estimates of 6 major neurologic diseases, we compared the relative prevalences and the annual NIH support levels for 6 major neurologic disorders: Alzheimer disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson disease, and stroke. Compared to these other major neurologic disorders, epilepsy research is funded at a persistently lower rate based on relative disease prevalences. Relative NIH funding for these other disorders in 2010 adjusted for prevalence ranged from 1.7x (stroke) to 61.1x (ALS) greater than epilepsy. The disparity cannot be explained by differences in the overall impact of these diseases on US citizens. Greater transparency in the review and funding process is needed to disclose the reason for this disparity.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.242
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.171 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainIncentives
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207