A Ten-Year Analysis of the Research Funding Program of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) awarded over $3 million in research grants during 2000 through 2009. However, little is known regarding the outcomes of this funding program. Given the continued constraints in securing research dollars, we evaluated the research funding program of the OTA over this ten-year period. We studied the association of grant funding with (1) the publication rate, (2) the cost per publication, (3) the journal impact factor for published manuscripts, and (4) the dollar amount of extramural funding secured. METHODS: Grants from the target period were identified with use of the OTA online archive. The title of each grant and the name of the principal investigator were used to search across seven scientific databases for associated publications. RESULTS: Over the study period, $3,507,050 was awarded through 131 grants (thirty-three clinical, thirty-nine basic science, and fifty-nine resident). A total of 202 associated publications (seventy-three for the clinical grants, eighty-four for the basic science grants, and forty-five for the resident grants) were identified. Twenty-two (67%) of the clinical grants led to at least one publication compared with thirty-one (79%) of the basic science grants and twenty-four (41%) of the resident grants. The cost per publication was $26,892 for the clinical grants compared with $11,357 for the basic science grants and $13,111 for the resident grants. The mean impact factor of the journals containing the publications was 2.58. CONCLUSIONS: Over the study period, the publication output for the funded projects was substantial. Basic science grants had the highest publication rate. The three types of grants resulted in publication in peer-reviewed journals with similar impact factors.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".