MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214899966 · doi:10.1177/15910199221084801

Challenges and opportunities in research funding for neurovascular diseases from a clinical researcher's perspective

2022· article· en· W4214899966 on OpenAlexaff
Johanna M. Ospel, Rosalie McDonough, Aravind Ganesh, Arshia Sehgal, Manon Kappelhof, Nima Kashani, Catharina J.M. Klijn, Michael D. Hill, Jeffrey L. Saver, Mayank Goyal

Bibliographic record

VenueInterventional Neuroradiology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersZonMw
KeywordsNeurovascular bundleSpecialtyMedicinePublic relationsDescriptive researchDescriptive statisticsFamily medicineBusinessMedical educationPolitical scienceSociologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND & PURPOSE: Neurovascular research is underfunded, imposing substantial challenges on clinical researchers in the field of neurovascular diseases. We explored what physicians perceive to be the greatest challenges with regard to neurovascular research funding, and how they think the funding crisis in neurovascular research could be overcome. METHODS: We performed an international, multi-disciplinary survey among physicians involved in the medical care of patients with neurovascular diseases. After providing their demographic data, physicians were asked closed-ended questions on their personal opinion regarding challenges in neurovascular research funding, and how these challenges could be overcome. Physicians also described in their own words what they perceived to be the biggest challenges in obtaining funding. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and response clustering. RESULTS: Of 233 participating physicians (70.4% male,82.8% senior staff) from 48 countries, 217(97.4%) perceived the discrepancy between required and available funding to be a problem;172(73.8%) considered it a major problem. High competitiveness (61/118 available free text responses[51.7%]), time-consuming application processes (28/118[23.7%]) and administrative requirements (25/118[21.1%]) were identified as key obstacles. Traditional big funding agencies were perceived to be most capable of closing the neurovascular research funding gap, followed by specialty-specific organizations and industry, while philanthropy and crowdfunding were perceived to be less important. CONCLUSION: The gap between required and available funding was perceived to be a major problem in neurovascular research, with high competitiveness, time-consuming funding processes and excessive administrative requirements being the key obstacles to obtaining funding. Traditional funding agencies were perceived to be most capable of closing this funding gap.

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)0.108
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.179
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.570

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1080.179
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.011
Scholarly communication0.0130.007
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.841
GPT teacher head0.615
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInterventional NeuroradiologySame topicHealth and Medical Research ImpactsFrench-language works237,207