bims-evares 2025-12-07 papers

bims-evares

Biomed News

on Evaluation of research

Issue of 2025–12–07
fifteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society

Global academic productivity for emergency medicine and the research output by countries of different income levels.
Gender Gaps in Publication: Plastic Surgery in Australasia.
A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Research Productivity for Medical Students Matching Into Integrated Plastic Surgery Residency.
Recurring low statistical robustness in orthopaedic surgery: A systematic review of 84 fragility index studies.
Disproportionately low authorship by women urologists in sexual medicine journals.
Impact factor: Playing a number on you.
Diabetes "Trade Journals": A Rather Heterogeneous Affair.
Uncovering drivers of climate research in policy with pretrained language models.
Combining citation and productivity metrics through harmonic mean enhances researcher ranking accuracy.
How does academia recognize the contribution of scientific data? Evidence from data contributors' authorship.
Fifty Years of Retracted Medical Publications From 1975 to 2024: A Comprehensive Analysis of Trends, Reasons, and Countries Using the Retraction Watch Database.
Association of Use of GRADE, Protocol Registration, and Journal Impact Factor With Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Published in Rehabilitation Journals: A Meta-Epidemiological Study.
From pathogens to policy: using network analysis to map the knowledge base on human-zoonotic disease dynamics underpinning global pandemic policy.
National Institutes of Health Funding for Vitiligo Research: Trends from 1985 to 2024.
Biological Psychiatry: Addressing new challenges to scientific integrity including paper mills, citation cartels, coercive citation practices, fake reviewers, and AI-generated papers.

Clin Exp Emerg Med. 2025 Dec 02.

Global academic productivity for emergency medicine and the research output by countries of different income levels.

Alexei A Birkun.

   Objective: Despite disparities in availability and quality of emergency care, the extent to which countries with different incomes participate in emergency medicine (EM) research remains understudied. This study evaluated academic productivity in the EM field depending on country income.
Methods: Research published in Scopus-indexed journals of the EM subject area since 2004 was analysed quantitatively. Publication, citation, journal impact, and national socioeconomic data were compared. Automated topic modelling was applied using a latent Dirichlet allocation model.
Results: The analysis included 154,458 publications (89.7% in English) from 177 countries, which received 1,817,635 citations. High-income countries (HIC) outperformed upper-middle-income (UMIC), lower-middle-income (LMIC), and low-income countries (LIC) 11, 41, and 72 fold, respectively, by the weighted (per million population per country) number of publications, and 21, 54, and 171 fold, respectively, by the weighted count of citations. The annual number of publications was predicted to considerably rise for HIC, in less extent for UMIC, and far less for LMIC, but not for LIC. Research productivity showed a significant relationship with national socioeconomic indicators. Based on the topic modelling, HIC paid relatively higher attention to advancements in resuscitation, whereas lower income countries were more focused on injuries.
Conclusion: While global research productivity for EM is progressively rising, lower income countries lag far behind high-income ones. Countries with different incomes have distinct priorities in EM research. The development of country-specific EM research agendas would help boost national academic productivity and determine context-appropriate interventions for improving outcomes in emergency care.

Keywords:  Emergencies; Emergency Medicine; Global Health; Research; Resource-Limited Settings

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.15441/ceem.25.144
ANZ J Surg. 2025 Dec 01.

Gender Gaps in Publication: Plastic Surgery in Australasia.

Caroline Lam, Collette Massy-Westropp, Stuart Hamilton.

   BACKGROUND: While studies have explored the gender gap in scientific literature, there is a scarcity of information on the impact within surgical publications. We examine the gender gap in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery papers across two prominent Australasian journals.
METHODS: All original clinical science articles published in AJOPS and ANZ Journal of Surgery were reviewed from 2018 to 2024. The gender of the first and last authors, as well as the subspecialty category, type of paper, journal volume, year and issue were entered in a database for further analysis. In addition, we examined whether first author gender was correlated to the gender of the senior faculty with whom they were co-authored.
RESULTS: A total of 344 papers met the inclusion criteria for the study. Male authorship was more prevalent accounting for 65% in comparison to female authorship at 35%. When selecting for editorials only, male first authors accounted for 83% (43) versus female first authors at 17% (10). Excluding editorials, male first authorship reached 62% (183) while females made up the remaining 38% (108). In terms of senior authorship, males accounted for 80% (234) versus 20% (59).
CONCLUSION: Despite some fluctuation, our findings demonstrate a persistent disequilibrium in gender representation in the chosen journals which likely reflects the current disparity in the profession. Whether the increased recruitment and retention of female trainees and surgeons, is gradually translating to publication output, is not entirely understood. Further research is needed to identify and address the barriers to publication experienced by women in plastic surgery.

Keywords:  authorship; gender gap; publication bias

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.70410
Ann Plast Surg. 2025 Dec 01.

A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Research Productivity for Medical Students Matching Into Integrated Plastic Surgery Residency.

Joseph D Quick, Malena Allbright, Georgia Babb, Emanuella M Brito, Noam Yanay, Brian Benyamini, Lauren E Powell, Neel Vishwanath, Berk B Ozmen, Graham S Schwarz.

   INTRODUCTION: Research productivity is commonly used as an objective metric for applicant differentiation in the integrated plastic and reconstructive surgery match process. Few studies have examined the content, timing, and predictive value of peer-reviewed research output among matched plastic and reconstructive surgery applicants.
METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, first-year residents matched into integrated plastic surgery programs during the 2024-2025 cycle were identified. Research metrics were collected from PubMed, Google Scholar, and ResearchGate, and subspecialty focus and journal characteristics were categorized for all publications. Statistical analyses included Spearman correlation, Mann-Whitney U tests, and a multivariable logistic regression to identify independent predictors of matching at a top 20 Doximity-ranked program.
RESULTS: Among 224 matched applicants, the median total publication count was 10 (IQR: 5-18), with 6 plastic surgery-specific publications (IQR: 2-12), 3 first-author publications (IQR: 1-5), and an H-index of 5 (IQR: 3-6). Most applicants had their first plastic surgery publication one year prior to the match (IQR: 0-2). General plastic surgery (67.4%) and education/nonclinical (50%) topics were the most represented subspecialties among applicants' research. Publications in craniofacial surgery (42.9%), microsurgery (29%), aesthetics (25%), gender-affirming surgery (17.9%), hand surgery (17.4%), peripheral nerve surgery (11.2%), and burn surgery (9.4%) were less common among applicants. Applicants most frequently published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open (240 publications), Annals of Plastic Surgery (213 publications), and the Journal of Craniofacial Surgery (196 publications). In multivariable analysis, no individual research metric independently predicted matching at a top 20 program, though the overall model demonstrated fair discriminative ability (AUC = 0.731).
CONCLUSION: Among matched plastic surgery applicants in the most recent 2024-2025 application cycle, research productivity was high with a wide variety of subspecialty interest.

Keywords:  education; match; medical student; plastic surgery; publication; research

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004576
J Exp Orthop. 2025 Oct;12(4): e70504

Recurring low statistical robustness in orthopaedic surgery: A systematic review of 84 fragility index studies.

Hassaan Abdel Khalik, Helena Son, Krishnateja Narayana, Moin Khan, Olufemi Rolland Ayeni.

   Purpose: Increasing attention has been directed towards the fragility index (FI) and reverse fragility index (RFI) in orthopaedic surgery. The purpose of this study was to amalgamate the FI and RFI literature in orthopaedic surgery, and critically appraise its clinical impact.
Methods: Three databases were searched from inception to 22 March 2025, for articles evaluating either the FI or RFI across orthopaedic surgery. Median and mean FI and RFI were presented as ranges with median values. Findings from correlation analyses assessing the impact of study characteristics on FI were consolidated. Citation analysis was performed to assess the uptake of FI/RFI literature.
Results: Eighty-four studies were included in the final analysis. Sports medicine was the most represented subspeciality (25.0%). Median FI of subspeciality-specific studies ranged from 1 to 6, and RFI from 3 to 7. Median FI of pathology-specific studies ranged from 0 to 12, and RFI from 2 to 10. The RFI exceeded the FI in most pathology-specific studies (93.3%). Decreasing p-value (88%), increasing sample size (50%) and increasing study power (50%) were commonly found to be associated with increasing fragility index. The median number of citations was 11.5 (interquartile range [IQR], 3.0-27.0) with a median citation density of 3.1 (IQR, 1.2-6.2). Sports medicine publications had the highest collective median citation density of 4.3 (IQR, 1.0-6.6). The h-index for all included studies was 25, indicating 25 studies had at least 25 citations. Earlier publication year (p < 0.001) and increasing journal impact factor (p = 0.007) were associated with increased citations.
Conclusion: The majority of fragility index research is concentrated across a few orthopaedic subspecialties with redundant findings indicating low statistical robustness. Recurring methodologic recommendations based on correlation analyses include increasing patient sample size to increase study power. Methodological recommendations from this body of research should be integrated into future original studies to strengthen statistical robustness.
Level of Evidence: Level III.

Keywords:  evidence‐based medicine; fragility index; orthopaedic surgery; p value; research methodology; statistical fragility

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/jeo2.70504
Sex Med. 2025 Dec;13(6): qfaf095

Disproportionately low authorship by women urologists in sexual medicine journals.

Sonam Saxena, Akhil Peta, Michael Raver, Simon Gelman, Matthew Yang, Maie Abdel-Wahab, Nolan Holbrook, Sophia Zhang, Jamie Chen, Sarah Brink, David Shin.

   Background: The recent efforts to increase the proportion of women in urology have demonstrated success; it is equally important to evaluate success of these efforts in urologic sub-specialized fields as well.
Aim: This study aims to evaluate the impact of these efforts and the representation of women urologists in the sexual medicine literature.
Methods: Original research manuscripts from three prominent sexual medicine journals from 2013 to 2023 were collected. Manuscripts submitted under Paraphilia subsections, as well as systematic reviews, meta-analyses, communications, commentaries, replies, and those involving psychometrics were excluded. Proportion of women authors in these journals' literature was determined by searching names of first and last authors on the Internet.
Outcomes: This study evaluates whether authorship by women in sexual medicine literature has increased following recent efforts to enhance their representation in urology and related fields.
Results: 1065 of 2701 (39%) collected manuscripts meeting criteria were from first (FA) or last authors (LA). Women were significantly less likely to be FA or LAs across these manuscripts (P< 0.001).Further, variables such as author degree, field, profession, and institution type all demonstrated significant gender disparities in FA and LA as well. Representation of women FAs and LAs was lowest in urology (15%, 5%) compared to obstetrics and gynecology (64%, 55%) and psychology (68%, 63%).
Clinical Implications: These disparities in sexual medicine publications have important consequences for women urologists; these opportunities often impact future career advancement in academia.
Strengths and Limitations: Gender identification relied on traditional markers (such as names and pronouns), which may not fully capture the diversity of gender identities, we sought to mediate that by using a binary identification method. The analysis was also limited to first and last authorship, which may not capture contributions from middle authors.
Conclusion: Although the push to increase the proportion of women urologists has shown success, there are still significant disparities seen in publication of sexual medicine literature. Potential avenues for improvement include mentorship and targeted institutional support.

Keywords:  gender disparity; sexual medicine; women authorship

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/sexmed/qfaf095
Quant Plant Biol. 2025 ;6 e33

Impact factor: Playing a number on you.

Olivier Hamant.

  The impact factor has become a defining feature of scientific journals. However, such reductionism can be toxic to science. As Cambridge University Press Quantitative Plant Biology celebrates its 5-year anniversary, and its first impact factor, this is an opportunity to set things straight. A call to value what a scientific journal is about: a community of scientists, a guarantee of rigour and quality, an invitation to explore the complexity of our world, a fair and ethical environment and an engaging, diverse and creative arena.

Keywords:  Goodhart law; impact factor; publishing; quantitative plant biology; systems thinking

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1017/qpb.2025.10024
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2025 Dec 01. 19322968251399653

Diabetes "Trade Journals": A Rather Heterogeneous Affair.

Lutz Heinemann.

  There are a plethora of medical journals, also for the diabetes indication. Only a limited number of these journals are listed in databases like PubMed. A number of other diabetes journals approach potential authors and ask for submission of manuscripts. They promise rapid publication; however, one wonders what kind of impact these journals have and how serious they are at handling the review process and so on. One wonders what the economical basis (= business model) for these journals is, the publication fee might be considerable. Apparently, some journals pretend to publish manuscripts; however, this does not happen in reality, despite the fact that the authors have paid the publication fee. In the same line of thinking, the quality of the publications in these journals is at least questionable.

Keywords:  diabetes; fraud; impact factor; professional journals; quality

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/19322968251399653
Patterns (N Y). 2025 Nov 14. 6(11): 101342

Uncovering drivers of climate research in policy with pretrained language models.

Basil Mahfouz, Licia Capra, Geoff Mulgan.

  Evidence-based policymaking is crucial for addressing societal challenges, yet factors driving research uptake in policy remain unclear. Previous studies have not accounted for the confounding effect of policy relevance, potentially skewing conclusions about impact drivers. Using climate change as a case study, we employ pretrained language models to identify semantically similar research paper pairs where one is cited in policy and the other is not, controlling for inherent policy relevance. This approach allows us to isolate the effects of various factors on policy citation likelihood. We find that in climate change, academic citations are the strongest predictor of policy impact, followed by media mentions. This computational method can be extended to other variables as well as different scientific domains to enable comparative analysis of policy uptake mechanisms across fields.

Keywords:  bibliometric indicators; citation patterns; climate policy; evidence-based policy; knowledge transfer; machine learning; natural language processing; near-miss analysis; research evaluation; science-policy interface

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2025.101342
Sci Rep. 2025 Nov 29.

Combining citation and productivity metrics through harmonic mean enhances researcher ranking accuracy.

Ghulam Mustafa, Muhammad Saeed Khattak, Muhammad Tanvir Afzal, Adnan Akhunzada, Mario Konecki, Nikola Ivković.

  Addressing the challenge of predicting scientific impact and ranking researchers is a complex yet critical task, drawing significant attention from scholars across diverse fields. This effort plays a key role in improving research productivity, supporting decision-making processes, and advancing methodologies for scientific evaluation. Over time, various metrics such as citation counts, total publications, hybrid methods, the h index, and h-type indicators have been introduced to identify influential researchers. Despite these efforts, no single metric has been universally accepted as the best approach, as different metrics serve varying purposes and contexts. This study presents a novel index developed through comprehensive analysis of a dataset comprising 1060 Neuroscience researchers, including both awardees and non-awardees. The initial phase of the research involved evaluating specific metrics to determine their ability to place awardees among the top 100 researchers, leading to the identification of the five parameters most frequently associated with awardee inclusion. Advanced deep learning techniques were then applied to refine the selection, pinpointing the top five influential parameters and assessing the disjointness in their outputs. To further enhance the findings, seven statistical models were examined for their ability to combine the most disjoint parameter pair while retaining their individual strengths. Selecting the most disjoint pair ensures that the ranking process integrates diverse evaluation criteria rather than relying on redundant or highly correlated parameters. This approach captures a broader spectrum of researcher impact, reducing bias and increasing the robustness of the final ranking index. Among these models, the h2 upper and k indices exhibited the highest disjointness ratio at 0.97. Additionally, the Harmonic Mean approach demonstrated superior performance, achieving an average impact score of 0.76, and excelled at preserving the unique features of the selected parameter pair. Based on these results, a new index was formulated using the Harmonic Mean (HM) of the most disjoint pair. This index showed significantly improved performance compared to existing metrics, offering a robust solution for ranking researchers effectively.

Keywords:  Author assessment parameters; Multi-layer perceptron (MLP); Neuroscience domain datasets; Parameter ranking; h-Type indicators

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-30432-4
Sci Data. 2025 Dec 02.

How does academia recognize the contribution of scientific data? Evidence from data contributors' authorship.

Jiaxue Liu, Xiaowei Ma, Hong Jiao, Yuhong Qiu, Tong Niu, Bo Yang.

Scientific data has become a cornerstone of contemporary biomedical research, yet the academic recognition of data contributions remains underexplored. In this study, we leveraged the open-access biomedical literature in the PMC (PubMed Central) to identify GEO (Gene Expression Omnibus) datasets and extract their associated original papers. By examining the authorship relationships between dataset contributors and paper authors, we quantitatively assessed the academic recognition of scientific data. Our findings reveal that approximately 80% of dataset contributors play pivotal roles in their respective original papers, either as first or corresponding authors, with this proportion continuing to rise. This trend highlights the growing importance of data collection, processing, and analysis in the research process, along with its increasing recognition by the scientific community. Furthermore, we observed that high-impact journals invest more resources in enhancing data quality, thereby improving research credibility, academic influence, and overall research outcomes. These results underscore the gradual shift toward recognizing the value of scientific data work, which is critical for advancing research quality.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-06340-7
J Korean Med Sci. 2025 Dec 01. 40(46): e300

Fifty Years of Retracted Medical Publications From 1975 to 2024: A Comprehensive Analysis of Trends, Reasons, and Countries Using the Retraction Watch Database.

Ramazan Azim Okyay, Burhan Fatih Kocyigit, Ainur B Qumar, Marlen Yessirkepov, Hilmi Erdem Sumbul.

   BACKGROUND: Scientific medical research has progressed tremendously during the last 50 years, but concerns about research integrity, publishing ethics, and retraction trends have grown. Retractions are essential for revising the scientific record and maintaining credibility, yet an extensive long-term assessment of retracted medical publications is limited.
METHODS: We performed a descriptive analysis of 50 years of retracted medical publications from the Retraction Watch Database. Data were refined to encompass solely medicine-related retractions, omitting corrections, expressions of concern, and reinstatements. We classified retraction reasons into 68 categories, emphasizing the top 10 most frequently encountered reasons. Temporal trends were evaluated employing semi-logarithmic linear regression models. The geographical distribution and journal-specific retractions were also examined.
RESULTS: An analysis was conducted on 16,041 retracted medical documents from 1975 to 2024. The leading reasons for retraction included data concerns (31.47%), fraud (11.37%), peer review issues (11.21%), referencing issues (7.54%), and ethical violations (7.09%). The highest number of retractions was noted in Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine (5.91%), Journal of Healthcare Engineering (5.85%), and Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (4.36%). Approximately 45.28% of retracted papers included at least one author from China, followed by the United States and India. The medical subfields most impacted were oncology (19.87%), cardiovascular medicine (15.62%), and pharmacology (14.49%). Temporal analysis indicated a steady rise in retractions, with data concerns and fraud doubling typically every 5.5 and 5.2 years.
CONCLUSION: The rising amount of retractions underscores heightened scrutiny and enhanced detection techniques while highlighting ongoing research integrity issues. Data integrity, fraudulent activities, and compromised peer review are significant issues. Fortifying editorial policies, augmenting transparency, and bolstering research ethics education are essential for reducing misconduct and maintaining the integrity of medical papers.

Keywords:  Editorial Policies; Ethics; Medicine; Peer Review; Publishing; Research Ethics; Retraction Notice; Retraction of Publication

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e300
Cureus. 2025 Oct;17(10): e95695

Association of Use of GRADE, Protocol Registration, and Journal Impact Factor With Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Published in Rehabilitation Journals: A Meta-Epidemiological Study.

Takahiro Tsuge, Norio Yamamoto, Yosuke Tomita, Akikazu Hagiyama, Daijo Shiratsuchi, Masatsugu Okamura, Takao Kaneko, Kosuke Suzuki, Yuki Nakashima, Shunsuke Taito, Takashi Yorifuji.

  This study aimed to identify factors associated with the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs) published in rehabilitation journals. We conducted a meta-epidemiological study as a secondary analysis of a previous study. The study protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework. We analyzed 219 SRs from rehabilitation journals published since 2020. We assessed reporting quality using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 and methodological quality using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2. Multiple linear regression and Spearman's correlation were used to identify factors associated with quality, including Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and the Journal Impact Factor (JIF). Multivariate analysis revealed PRISMA 2020 adherence was significantly associated with use of GRADE (β = 4.33; 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.24-5.42), protocol registration (β = 3.40; 95% CI: 2.32-4.47), and the JIF (2023) (β = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.42-0.95). AMSTAR 2 adherence was also significantly associated with use of GRADE (β = 2.52; 95% CI: 1.88-3.17), protocol registration (β = 2.07; 95% CI: 1.44-2.70), and the JIF (2023) (β = 0.29; 95% CI: 0.14-0.45). Weak positive correlations were observed between the JIF (2023) and both PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR 2 adherence (ρ = 0.27 and ρ = 0.22, respectively; both P < 0.01). It should be noted that these findings reflect associations and do not imply causality. To enhance the quality of SRs in rehabilitation, researchers should prioritize adherence to PRISMA 2020, particularly the use of GRADE and protocol registration, which this study identified as key associated factors.

Keywords:  citation; grade; journal impact factor; methodological and reporting quality; prisma

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.95695
Health Res Policy Syst. 2025 Nov 29.

From pathogens to policy: using network analysis to map the knowledge base on human-zoonotic disease dynamics underpinning global pandemic policy.

Bruna de Paula Fonseca, David Bell, Garrett Wallace Brown.

Zoonotic disease dynamics (ZDD), encompassing pathogen spillover, transmission pathways and host-pathogen interactions, are widely acknowledged as drivers of emerging infectious diseases. Yet, the extent to which recent pandemic prevention, preparedness and response (PPPR) policies - the integrated frameworks guiding international efforts to anticipate and manage infectious disease threats - are grounded in this expanding body of scientific research remains unclear. This study examines how research on ZDD is cited in six influential global policy reports published between 2021 and 2023. We employed citation network analysis and qualitative profiling to compare references cited in these reports with those cited by a systematically identified set of broad-scope scientific publications on ZDD. Of the 313 references across the six reports, only 59 (19%) pertained to ZDD, a relatively small proportion considering that zoonotic diseases are framed as primary drivers of pandemic risk in these same reports. The academic literature is highly diverse and predominantly focused on specific pathogens (66%), with few studies offering a broad-scope perspective (4%) that addresses the complexity of ZDD. The citation network of the selected broad-scope literature was fragmented revealing low convergence of the knowledge base. Shared references between reports and scientific literature (n = 31) were mostly modelling studies (45%) or reviews (35%). Secondary data predominated (45%), and only 6% relied primarily on original field or laboratory data. Foundational studies were often overrepresented. This narrow and selective evidence base risks obscuring key uncertainties and limiting the diversity of perspectives that inform global PPPR strategies. Our findings highlight the value of more systematic approaches to scientific evidence use in PPPR policy documents. Strengthening the science-policy interface in PPPR requires greater engagement with emerging research, epistemic diversity, and the acknowledgment of uncertainty - essential steps toward building more adaptive, equitable and resilient strategies.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-025-01434-5
J Drugs Dermatol. 2025 Dec 01. 24(12): 1260-1263

National Institutes of Health Funding for Vitiligo Research: Trends from 1985 to 2024.

Abdulaziz Hamid, Kara Turner, Nada Elbuluk.

BACKGROUND: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds a multitude of dermatology research. This study examines NIH funding for vitiligo studies and highlights key trends.
METHODS: The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool database was used to identify vitiligo research projects funded between 1985 and 2024, with results limited to project titles containing "vitiligo."
RESULTS/DISCUSSION: The NIH awarded 166 grants for vitiligo research between 1985 and 2024. This study analyzed 144 of these awards, totaling $22,343,119. The greatest increase occurred between 1998 and 1999, with the average funding per grant rising by $124,316, leading to a total funding increase from $269,102 to $1,149,554. The most common funding mechanism was Non-Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)/Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR). The National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) was the leading administering institute. Medical schools were the most awarded organization type. The most common grant types were R01 (n=59, 41%) and M01 (n=21, 15%). Among the 144 funded projects, 48 were unique, with most focusing on pathophysiology (n=36) and treatment (n=8).
LIMITATIONS: Study limitations include incomplete data on NIH research funding, with 22 awards missing total cost information and 25 awards calculated using subproject sums.
CONCLUSION: From 1985 to 2024, NIH funding for vitiligo research fluctuated with an upward trend in recent years. The most common funding mechanism was Non-SBIR/STTR. Among organization types, medical schools received the most awards. Most vitiligo research projects have been completed and have focused on understanding the pathophysiology and treatment of vitiligo. &nbsp.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36849/JDD.9011
Biol Psychiatry. 2025 Nov 28. pii: S0006-3223(25)01646-4. [Epub ahead of print]

Biological Psychiatry: Addressing new challenges to scientific integrity including paper mills, citation cartels, coercive citation practices, fake reviewers, and AI-generated papers.

John H Krystal, Deanna Barch, Rhiannon M Bugno, Cameron S Carter.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2025.11.017