OBJECTIVES/GOALS: We focus on the following mission aligned activities centered upon optimizing the culture around inclusion, equity and diversity in the clinical and translational research faculty at UAB:

• To identify, support and promote Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) faculty award recognition and leadership program participation locally, regionally and nationally

• To identify, support and promote senior faculty representation on DEI-focused regional, national, and international scientific advisory committees of foundation, professional society and federal programs

• To identify opportunities and support the development of competitive DEI-focused foundation, professional society and federal grant applications

• To support the academic advancement, promotion and tenure among DRIVEN community

• To sponsor and convene professional development and social activities for the DRIVEN community

METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A partnership of the Center for Clinical and Translational Science Training Academy and the Scientific Community of Outcomes Researchers (SCOR), DRIVEN is a multi-faceted solution to enhance workforce diversity by promoting individual and collective professional development, recognition, and advancement to foster an inclusive, equitable, and diverse research workforce. DRIVEN provides a platform, a community, and a common place where individuals can access resources to more easily identify opportunities aligned with their specific research goals, as well as peer and network support at every step along their professional journey. DRIVEN is uniquely aligned to assist investigators with applying for funding through NIH diversity supplements, foundation opportunities, and other national awards. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: DRIVEN provides networking opportunities, information, and writing support for funding opportunities. Since its inception, less than a year ago, we have seen an increase in writing groups, matched investigators with funding opportunities, and provided networking opportunities for mentors and mentees to meet and for peer mentoring to occur. The interest and momentum surrounding DRIVEN both from internal advisory groups and external advisory groups is significant and will only continue with the endorsement of UAB leadership. DRIVEN is expected to be used as a tool for the recruitment and retention of diverse faculty not only within the UAB community but across the CCTS Partner Network thus changing healthcare in the region. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: According to the NIH, research shows that diverse teams who capitalize on innovative ideas and distinct perspectives outperform less diverse teams. Not only is achieving diversity in the biomedical research workforce critical, but providing diverse researchers with access to support and community is competitive necessity.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: We aimed to explore the students’ assessments of workload distribution by comparing personal reflective commentaries and team documents defining division of labor in a team science setting. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The Interprofessional Research Design course models the team science experience by bringing together MD and PhD students to write a research grant. Four teams of 13 students were tasked with both individual and team-based assignments: 1) Each week, each student reported their perception of their own and their team members’ effort over the week (totalling 100%). 2) Iterative work contracts for each team were submitted at four time-points; assigned work toward project completion totalled 100%. 3) Lastly, each student submitted a short commentary reflecting on the prior week’s team dynamics and teamwork. We retrospectively performed a mixed-methods analysis of the workload data. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Group-reporting in the team contracts remained static throughout the course, often stating equal distribution of workload, whereas individual reporting was more dynamic. Of 13 students, 8 rated more than 50% of the weeks as balanced. Among some students, there was a discordance of workload distribution when comparing the group document to the individual perceptions of work performed by their teammates. Reflective writing mapped more closely to individual quantitative reports. The data also revealed within team variations, where one student may report a higher proportion of their contributions, while the rest of the team attributed that student a lower percentage of the total work. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: An important aspect of team function is workload distribution. Group-based workload discussions may be a useful framework, but does not provide insight into team dynamics, whereas individually reported workload distributions and short reflections seem to more accurately inform us on team function.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The aim of this project is to assess the usability and acceptance of a web-based educational resource for early career researchers. The Emerging Investigators website is designed to bring together resources, provide educational support and foster a community of early career researchers throughout the Mount Sinai Health System (MSHS). Locally designed and built, this web-based platform is developed using the principles of Community of Inquiry (COI), which considers how the design of online learning environments might best create and sustain a sense of community among learners. Developing a resource that meets the needs of this cohort of researchers requires an iterative implementation strategy guided by user feedback. A formal website roll-out strategy and accompanied evaluation aims to determine the design, navigability, content, relevance and educational value of this online resource from a user perspective. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: In order to ensure this resource effectively meets the needs of this cohort of researchers, a mixed process of evaluation and design was utilized. An initial phase 1 survey was conducted with TL1 and KL2 scholars. Surveys consisted of standardized questions with answers arranged as Likert-type scales and additional written responses to collect valuable qualitative data. A convenience sample of early career researchers at Mount Sinai were contacted for initial survey participation (N = 10). A total of 3 junior faculty KL2 scholars, 3 TL1 post-doc and 4 TL1 pre-doc scholars responded to the survey. Participants were initially asked to comment on design, functionality and usefulness of content on a Likert scale with qualitative comments to support the given scores. They were subsequently asked to consider what key topics or resources were missing from the website. Based on the initial survey, changes were made to the format and content of the Emerging Investigators website to improve content relevance and usability. For phase 2, an evaluation rubric was developed to assess design, navigability, content, relevance, along with three key COI criteria to determine the educational value of this online resource. The rubric will be utilized to collect feedback in the wider phase 2 roll out of the website. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The first phase of survey feedback shaped overall design of the resource. The second phase will comprehensively evaluate the value of the website in the context of teaching and learning for emerging investigators. Ten surveys were captured in the first phase. Data collection is ongoing for the second phase. Phase 1 feedback was primarily qualitative, and valuable in informing overall design choices and content. Overall the website was well received, with participants commenting on the value of the resource in terms of content and educational value. Participants particularly appreciated the regularly updated calendar function and the links provided to a wide range of resources. Functionality issues, such as broken links, were reported by participants and repaired for phase 2. Further topics of content were identified, and additional links and multimedia resources were added to address this feedback. The second phase evaluation is ongoing with data collection being conducted via an evaluation rubric. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The Emerging Investigators website, developed using the principles of COI provides key learning, reading and resources for early career investigators in a format that is well received by a sample group of early career researchers at Mount Sinai. The website has aimed to address the reported need for communication, collaboration and social interaction with peers and other researchers across the MSHS through the addition of further web-based resources such as a LinkedIn page, a blog to feature research and provide a sounding board for research efforts, and a calendar of events targeted specifically at early career researchers. These were highlighted as areas of particular value by the participants. We anticipate the results of phase 2 rubric-based evaluations will provide actionable data that will lead to further refinement of the website, an optimized interface, and improved usability.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The Mayo Clinic Clinical and Translational Science (CTS) Predoctoral program aims to develop independent researchers capable of leading multi-disciplinary teams to accelerate the translation of discovery to application. Here, we detail the outcomes of our graduates over the past ten years (2010-2019). METHODS/STUDY POPULATION:): A survey was fielded with all CTS graduates whose degrees were conferred since the program’s inception to 2019. Items addressed their current position, whether they were still involved in research, what type of research they were involved in, and whether they stayed involved with education. They also submitted a recent CV, from which data were collected about publications and grants. A subset were then contacted for a semi-structured interview. Items included questions addressing motivation for pursuing a PhD in CTS, whether the program prepared them for their current work, gaps they felt they had in training, and whether they felt they were making a difference in the lives of patients. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Of the 41 alumni, 34 responded (83% response rate). Of these, 19 (56%) are at Mayo Clinic, 9 (26%) work for other academic institutions, and 6 (21%) do not work for an academic institution. Most have remained in research (33/34, 97%). The majority (22/33, 67%) are involved in clinical research, 30% (10/33) in basic science, and 24% (8/33) in healthcare delivery research. Most (23/34, 68%) are engaged in educational activities. When asked about changes they have led, 67% (18/27) led quality improvement projects and 44% (12/27) designed a new research method. Several hold leadership positions either in their organization (12/16, 75%) or in a professional organization (10/16, 63%). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The CTS Predoctoral program successfully prepares scholars for careers involving clinical and translational research; furthermore, alumni remain in research-oriented careers after graduation. We will continue to gather longitudinal data alumni move forward in their careers.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The new CLIC Education & Career Development Gateway aims to be a translational science workforce ecosystem for CTSAs to share learning and training resources and career opportunities. The Gateway also provides individualized assistance to identify and implement TS learning and training resources. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The CLIC Education & Career Development Gateway, located on the CLIC website, is an entry way to: 1) the Education Clearinghouse, a platform where CTSA Program hubs can find and share educational resources individually or as part of resource kits; 2) the Opportunities Board, which includes jobs and mini-sabbaticals from CTSA Program hubs; and 3) the Education & Training Navigator, a personalized approach to education and training requests. These approaches help empower and support a cooperative learning and training community that is inclusive and collaborative, facilitating and amplifying opportunities for the sharing of educational resources throughout the translational science workforce. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Through a person-centered, direct engagement approach, the anticipated outcomes of these efforts are to promote increased collaboration across CTSA Program Hubs and partners, and the amplification of accessible, relevant existing resources. Another anticipated outcome is increased production of educational materials through the reduction of work duplication and identification of gaps in education and training resources. The Gateway also provides an opportunity to communicate the work and efforts that consortium-level special groups (working groups, special interest groups, etc.) produce. Ongoing evaluations and suggestions will help determine future improvements and functionalities. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: CLIC’s education and training ecosystem promotes education as a community space to facilitate opportunities for collaboration and partnerships, amplifying visibility of the work created by members of the CTSA community, and encouraging a transformative career trajectory for trainees and scholars.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Improve infrastructure, resources, partnerships, and metrics to enhance the research environment for Hispanic researchers as a Minority Serving Institution. To support the research infrastructure in our Campus to encourage a research culture of sustainability and productivity. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Development of four research capacity-building models to enhance the pathway of junior researchers as independent researchers:1. MSc Phase I-Scholar Award 2 years in a Post Doctoral Master in CTR ; 2. Advanced CTR Award 1 year to support research infrastructure development in submitting a grant to NIH with the mentoring of a Visiting Endowed Chair; 3. Mini Infrastructure Research Award 1 year provides funds to increase research productivity; 4. Award on Excellence in CTR recognizes a faculty member with a distinguished research portfolio that support HiREC Career Coach and Mentoring approach. HiREC targets junior faculty, early and mid-career researchers from our two partners Schools. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: HiREC has been recognize as support for research infrastructure development. Since 2011, 10 MSc Phase I-Scholar Awards have been granted increasing the pool of trained Hispanics researchers in P. R., the Advanced CTR Award of $50,000 each, from March, 2019, was granted to 2 women researchers from the SoM and 2 Visiting Endowed Chair were accepted as candidates. The Mini Infrastructure Research Award, since 2017, supported the development of 2 Science labs, data analysis, 3 peer review publications and other research capacity building. Two researchers from the SoM were honored with the HiREC 2018 Award on Excellence in CTR heighten the institutional recognition of top researchers’ endeavors. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: It’s imperative to pursue specific strategies that lead to successful research capacity-building models. By acknowledging institutional research infrastructure needs, trendy scientific and technological knowledges and researchers’ needs, HiREC have been able to successfully accomplish its mission. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DESCRIPTION: Authors have no conflict of interest in this research.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Introduce students to programming and software development practices in the life sciences by analyzing standard clinical diagnostic bloodwork for differential immune responses. Including lectures and a semester project with the goal of enhancing undergraduate students’ education to prepare them for careers in translational science. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The educational content was taught for the first time as a component of the newly developed course BTEC 330 “Software Applications in the Life Sciences” in UMBC’s Translational Life Science Technology (TLST) Bachelor’s degree program at the Universities at Shady Grove campus. Eleven students took the course. All were beginners with no programming background. Lectures provided background on the diagnostic components of the CBC, criteria for differential diagnosis in the clinical setting, and introduction to hematology and flow cytometry, forming underpinnings for interpretation of the CBC results. Weekly computer lab practical sessions provided training fundamentals of R programming language, the R-studio integrated development environment (IDE), and the GitHub.com open-source software development platform. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The graded assignment consisted of a coding project in which students were each assigned an individual parameter from the CBC results. These include, for example, relative lymphocyte count or hemoglobin readouts. Students each created their own R-language script using R-studio, with functional code which: 1) Read in data from a file provided, 2) Performed statistical testing, 3) Read out statistical results as text, and charts as image files, 4) “Diagnosed” individuals in the dataset as being inside or outside the clinical normal range for that parameter. Each student also registered their own GitHub account and published their open-source code. Grading was performed on code functionality by downloading each student repository and running the code with the instructor as an outside developer using the resource. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: In this curriculum, students with no background in programming learned to code a basic R-language script and use GitHub to automate interpretation of CBC results. With advanced automation now becoming commonplace in translational science, such course content can provide introductory level of literacy in development of clinical informatics software.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: We present findings of an academic-community health agency study that explored knowledge of cervical cancer and risks among Latinas. The collaboration between the UCLA School of Nursing and AltaMed, a community-based health organization provided diverse clinical training and opportunities to decrease disparities in marginalized communities. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We developed a 19-item open-ended survey guide (English/Spanish) to explore knowledge, beliefs and practices related to cervical cancer. Eight nursing students (females and males) completed a 10-week public health focused practicum at four clinical sites. Students interviewed volunteer Latinas (N = 51) and recorded their responses. Prior to surveying Latina clients, the nursing instructor developed a script and mentored the student through the recruitment process. The survey included items on the Papanicolaou exam (pap smear), the HPV, beliefs and knowledge of risks for cervical cancer and recommendations for health service delivery. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The Latina participants ranged in age from 20-50s, 70% spoke English, most were US born (52%) and 29% were from Mexico. The majority had received a Pap exam (88%), but fewer understood the purpose for the Pap (72%) or the association between HPV and cervical cancer (6%). Five major themes emerged: (1) knowledge deficits regarding women’s preventive care, and the HPV vaccine; (2) limited Spanish language educational materials; (3) importance of respectful client-provider interactions; (4) modesty; and 5) scheduling appointments and the importance of a diverse workforce that understand cultural and language nuances. Recommendations included ways to improve health literacy, cervical cancer knowledge, and delivery of culturally specific health care. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Finding highlight the importance of putting “personalismo” into practice; linking health behaviors, vaccines, and health care to addresses cervical cancer risks. The collaboration maximized student experiences with opportunities build evidence based sustainable programs for vulnerable communities.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The discipline of plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) is poorly understood by the public, primary care physicians, and nurses. The aim of our study is to assess medical students’ knowledge and perceptions of PRS as a discipline and explore factors influencing these opinions. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: To assess medical student’s knowledge and perception of PRS, we distributed an online survey to all medical students at all training levels (i.e. first year to fourth year) enrolled at UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA during 2019-2020 academic year. In the survey, participants were asked to match 12 surgical subspecialties with 36 operative procedure scenarios. In addition, the survey included questions investigating the most common social medical platform used by medical students and the role of medical social media accounts in contributing to their knowledge of surgical subspecialties. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Medical students demonstrated a profound gap in knowledge in plastic surgery. The majority of respondents correctly identified plastic surgeons as the primary surgeons performing the cosmetic procedures listed (abdominoplasty, facelift, and liposuction). PRS was identified as the primary specialty involved in breast reconstruction (94.4%) and burns surgery (88.9%). There was poor understanding of the role of plastic surgeons in hand surgery(16.6%), craniofacial surgery(14.8%), and head and neck cancer surgery(9.3%). 52.4% of respondents follow medical social media accounts and 45.6% of respondents indicated that social media contributed to their knowledge of surgical subspecialties. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Medical students, who form the next generation of doctors, have limited knowledge regarding versatile applications of PRS. Misconceptions about the discipline of PRS negatively impacts resource allocation and hinders the delivery of care to patients that would profoundly benefit from this specialty. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DESCRIPTION: No authors have financial disclosures or conflicts of interest to declare.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: A new researcher-facing module to support community engaged research has been added to the updated COALESCE website and user traffic was tracked since last reporting. We describe the process of development and the features of the new module, past 2-year traffic, and plans to develop a community facing module. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We monitored the number of unique users of COALESCE (teamscience.net) between 2017 and 2019 to determine if traffic slowed, stayed the same, or increased since teamscience.net was physically updated to function on mobile devices. In December 2019, a new module was launched to introduce researchers to the stages of team science community engaged research. To develop the module, we collaborated with academic partners at University of Illinois-Chicago to identify 3 local historic research case studies in and to characterize how each exemplified a team science stage: assembly, launch, or maturation. After interviewing key team members from each study, we iterated storyboards and scripts in collaboration with community engaged research experts and case study team members. The module was built, tested, and launched. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: In the 6 years between 2011 through 2017, the site attracted 16,016 unique visitors (approximately 2699 per year). In 2 years from 2017 through 2019, since the modernization of the website, user traffic has held steady or grown, attracting 6992 unique visitors (approximately 3496 per year). Our newly posted researcher-facing module highlights team assembly in the case a task force charged with reducing disparity in breast cancer outcomes in Chicago, team launch in a study to improve asthma management in a local FQHC, and team maturation in a study comparing clinic-based to public school-based treatment of disruptive behavior. We will soon create a companion community-facing module and resources to address identified needs for community partners engaging in research with academic institutions. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: COALESCE (teamscience.net) remains the first and only open-access, online training in team science for health professionals. Recent updates have improved usability and expanded available resources. We launched a comprehensive module for academics interested in community engaged research; future work will develop parallel community facing resources.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Clinical trials are the gold standard for developing evidence-based medicine. However, 20% of pediatric randomized clinical trials are discontinued and about 30% of completed trials go unpublished. (Pica and Bourgeois, 2016) Although patient recruitment is the most cited barrier to completing clinical trials, trials funded by academia are more likely discontinued compared to those funded by industry. This study is an attempt to gain additional insights into clinical trials in academic pediatrics. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Junior pediatrics faculty (Instructors and Assistant Professors) were recruited to participate in an online survey through RedCAP. The physicians were asked if they had prior experiences with clinical trials and whether they have interest in participating in clinical trials. Those interested were asked three additional questions: what role they were interested in, barriers to participating and interventions they thought would educate them about participating in clinical trials. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Ninety two (92) out of 119 (77%) junior pediatrics faculty completed the survey. Twenty (20) pediatric subspecialties were represented and respondents were on various academic pathways. A third of the respondents (35%) had previously participated in clinical trials. A majority of the faculty respondents (84; 70%) are on the clinical educator pathway. The 13 respondents who were not interested in clinical trials indicated their preference for patient care, education and quality improvement. Of those interested in clinical trials, the top three preferred roles were site co-investigator (68%), help designing future protocol (47%) and site principal investigator (44%). Other than time, the top barriers to participation were a lack of awareness of what it takes to lead or engage in clinical trials (53%) and a lack of training on clinical trials (45%). Mentoring from an experienced clinical trialist emerged as the top preferred intervention (78%). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Although limited to one institution, the findings of this study provide insights into pediatric faculty interest in clinical trials. If academic pediatricians are provided with mentoring, there could be an uptick in completed and published clinical trials involving pediatric populations.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Innovative educational approaches and training modalities are important for training a diverse workforce in the authentic skills needed to advance all phases of clinical and translational research. Endeavors to study and develop policies that promote the translational science spectrum are steeped in value judgments. Learning how to navigate moral ambiguity and ethical reasoning enlightens our understanding of stakeholder obligations, roles and responsibilities. Ethics education can be challenging if learners are insufficiently engaged in the necessary critical reflection. In this course, decision-making in public health is informed through the analysis of the ethical issues, developing alternative courses of action and providing justification for actions taken in response to real-world dilemmas. The course is provided to students with a variety of backgrounds (science, health, policy) in a Master of Public Health degree program. Course objective were to: 1) Identify ethical issues in public health policy, practice, and research using appropriate concepts and terms; 2) Recognize the full spectrum of determinants of health and related information needed to resolve ethical conflicts in public health policy, practice, and research; 3) Present varied and complex information in written and oral formats; 4) Assess potential solutions to ethical conflicts in public health policy, practice, and research and 5) Decide ethical courses of action for public health policy, practice, and research. We adopted an open pedagogy as a guiding praxis to inform public health ethics discourse amongst our learners. In this way, learner agency was maximized to develop course materials within a generalized framework and shared with each other through the perspectives of each individual. The goal was to not only analyze complex ethical dimensions of public health issues but also gain insights into the disciplinary lenses of one’s peers. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Each week was divided into two sessions, a seminar and workshop. Course instructors introduce topics in a one-hour session and then allow students to decide what information is needed for a second session where the ethical issues of the topic will be discussed. Information-gathering tasks are then distributed amongst students in areas that are not their specialty, e.g. social history to be researched by learner with a biology background. The second session then involves the reporting back of background information by each student and a discussion of the ethical issues that arise. Through this process, the ability to communicate with others in different disciplines is supported, while exploring other disciplines and then engaging in ethical discussion and reasoning. Topics were introduced during the seminar session each week over the span of five weeks: 1) global public health, 2) disease prevention & control, 3) environmental & occupational public health, 4) resource allocation & priority setting and 5) research ethics. Learners were tasked with identifying the needed information to address the ethical, policy, and research aspects of the public health question(s) presented in these seminars. Students independently submitted resources they discovered to course instructors prior to the workshop. The following session began with a workshop where learners briefly presented their findings and deliberated on specific facets of the public health issue from that previous seminar while discussing a specific case. Students were assessed on their preparation (submission of identified resources), workshop presentation and participation. Research Preparation: In each seminar, the class decided what key information would be required to support the discussion at the workshop, which revolved around a relevant case study on that week’s topic. Course instructors facilitated the groups identification of material to be researched and the delegation of tasks within the group. Each student submitted a summary document (template provided) to course instructors prior to class for their area of research related to the case. Research Presentation: At the beginning of each workshop, each student was asked to present the research work to the rest of the class so that everyone has the same information for the case study discussion. These short (5-10 minutes) presentations followed the format of the preparation summary. Participation/collaboration: Both the seminar and the workshop asked students to be active learners within the class, participating in discussion, strategizing for information-gathering tasks, presenting researched material and arguments to others, and participating in case study discussion. Participation was assessed in relation to the value of the contributions made by students. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The open pedagogy allowed the learners to construct the necessary materials to discuss issues with each other and develop not only a deeper understanding of the ethical dimension of public health issues but a shared understanding of each other’s disciplinary lenses. Course feedback was generally very positive, with learners either agreeing (33%) or strongly agreeing (67%) that the course was effective overall. In asking what learners liked best about the course, some indicated the “open pedagogy learning style” and “I liked the discussion format.” The positive comments mostly highlighted the discussion format. Areas for improvement noted by the learners included wanting “a longer course to cover more topics” and that the material was covered in “too short a time frame.” Other comments included that the course “was a bit disorganized” or that “the discussions were not very structured.” While the discussions by their very nature were unstructured, there is opportunity to refine this pedagogy to find right balance of learner agency. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The goal of this teaching method was to empower the learner with the important critical thinking skills to navigate challenging ethical dilemmas in public health they may encounter in their careers. These skills include the identification of the ethical or moral conflict(s), collecting the necessary information to examine/resolve the dilemma, think creatively about the information that is unavailable and how to discuss/disseminate information to a broad constituency. This an educational model that is easily adaptable for learners working in other areas of the translational research spectrum, e.g. basic, pre-clinical, clinical and implementation sciences.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Characterize formal informatics methods and approaches for enabling reproducible translational research. Education of reproducible methods to translational researchers and informaticians. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We performed a scoping review [1] of selected informatics literature (e.g. [2,3]) from PubMed and Scopus. In addition we reviewed literature and documentation of translational research informatics projects [4–21] at the University of Utah. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The example informatics projects we identified in our literature covered a broad spectrum of translational research. These include research recruitment, research data requisition, study design and statistical analysis, biomedical vocabularies and metadata for data integration, data provenance and quality, and uncertainty. Elements impacting reproducibility of research include (1) Research Data: its semantics, quality, metadata and provenance; and (2) Research Processes: study conduct including activities and interventions undertaken, collections of biospecimens and data, and data integration. The informatics methods and approaches we identified as enablers of reproducibility include the use of templates, management of workflows and processes, scalable methods for managing data, metadata and semantics, appropriate software architectures and containerization, convergence methods and uncertainty quantification. In addition these methods need to be open and shareable and should be quantifiable to measure their ability to achieve reproducibility. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The ability to collect large volumes of data collection has ballooned in nearly every area of science, while the ability to capturing research processes hasn’t kept with this pace. Potential for problematic research practices and irreproducible results are concerns.

Reproducibility is a core essentially of translational research. Translational research informatics provides methods and means for enabling reproducibility and FAIRness [22] in translational research. In addition there is a need for translational informatics itself to be reproducible to make research reproducible so that methods developed for one study or biomedical domain can be applied elsewhere. Such informatics research and development requires a mindset for meta-research [23].

The informatics methods we identified covers the spectrum of reproducibility (computational, empirical and statistical) and across different levels of reproducibility (reviewable, replicable, confirmable, auditable, and open or complete) [24–29]. While there are existing and ongoing efforts in developing informatics methods for translational research reproducibility in Utah and elsewhere, there is a need to further develop formal informatics methods and approaches: the Informatics of Research Reproducibility.

In this presentation, we summarize the studies and literature we identified and discuss our key findings and gaps in informatics methods for research reproducibility. We conclude by discussing how we are covering these topics in a translational research informatics course.

1. 1. Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014 Dec;5(4):371–85.

2. 2. McIntosh LD, Juehne A, Vitale CRH, Liu X, Alcoser R, Lukas JC, Evanoff B. Repeat: a framework to assess empirical reproducibility in biomedical research. BMC Med Res Methodol [Internet]. 2017 Sep 18 [cited 2018 Nov 30];17. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5604503/

3. 3. Denaxas S, Direk K, Gonzalez-Izquierdo A, Pikoula M, Cakiroglu A, Moore J, Hemingway H, Smeeth L. Methods for enhancing the reproducibility of biomedical research findings using electronic health records. BioData Min. 2017;10:31.

4. 4. Burnett N, Gouripeddi R, Wen J, Mo P, Madsen R, Butcher R, Sward K, Facelli JC. Harmonization of Sensor Metadata and Measurements to Support Exposomic Research. In: 2016 International Society of Exposure Science [Internet]. Research Triangle Park, NC, USA; 2017 [cited 2017 Jun 17]. Available from: http://www.intlexposurescience.org/ISES2017

5. 5. Butcher R, Gouripeddi RK, Madsen R, Mo P, LaSalle B. CCTS Biomedical Informatics Core Research Data Service. In Salt Lake City; 2016.

6. 6. Cummins M, Gouripeddi R, Facelli J. A low-cost, low-barrier clinical trials registry to support effective recruitment. In Salt Lake City, Utah, USA; 2016 [cited 2018 Nov 30]. Available from: //campusguides.lib.utah.edu/UtahRR16/abstracts

7. 7. Gouripeddi R, Warner P, Madsen R, Mo P, Burnett N, Wen J, Lund A, Butcher R, Cummins MR, Facelli J, Sward K. An Infrastructure for Reproducibile Exposomic Research. In: Research Reproducibility 2016 [Internet]. Salt Lake City, Utah, USA; 2016 [cited 2018 Nov 30]. Available from: //campusguides.lib.utah.edu/UtahRR16/abstracts

8. 8. Eilbeck K, Lewis SE, Mungall CJ, Yandell M, Stein L, Durbin R, Ashburner M. The Sequence Ontology: a tool for the unification of genome annotations. Genome Biol. 2005;6:R44.

9. 9. Gouripeddi R, Cummins M, Madsen R, LaSalle B, Redd AM, Presson AP, Ye X, Facelli JC, Green T, Harper S. Streamlining study design and statistical analysis for quality improvement and research reproducibility. J Clin Transl Sci. 2017 Sep;1(S1):18–9.

10. 10. Gouripeddi R, Eilbeck K, Cummins M, Sward K, LaSalle B, Peterson K, Madsen R, Warner P, Dere W, Facelli JC. A Conceptual Architecture for Reproducible On-demand Data Integration for Complex Diseases. In: Research Reproducibility 2016 (UtahRR16) [Internet]. Salt Lake City, Utah, USA; 2016 [cited 2017 Apr 25]. Available from: https://zenodo.org/record/168067

11. 11. Gouripeddi R, Lane E, Madsen R, Butcher R, LaSalle B, Sward K, Fritz J, Facelli JC, Cummins M, Shao J, Singleton R. Towards a scalable informatics platform for enhancing accrual into clinical research studies. J Clin Transl Sci. 2017 Sep;1(S1):20–20.

12. 12. Gouripeddi R, Deka R, Reese T, Butcher R, Martin B, Talbert J, LaSalle B, Facelli J, Brixner D. Reproducibility of Electronic Health Record Research Data Requests. In Washington, DC, USA; 2018 [cited 2018 Apr 21]. Available from: https://zenodo.org/record/1226602#.WtvvyZch270

13. 13. Gouripeddi R, Mo P, Madsen R, Warner P, Butcher R, Wen J, Shao J, Burnett N, Rajan NS, LaSalle B, Facelli JC. A Framework for Metadata Management and Automated Discovery for Heterogeneous Data Integration. In: 2016 BD2K All Hands Meeting [Internet]. Bethesda, MD; November 29-30 [cited 2017 Apr 25]. Available from: https://zenodo.org/record/167885

14. 14. Groat D, Gouripeddi R, Lin YK, Dere W, Murray M, Madsen R, Gestaland P, Facelli J. Identification of High-Level Formalisms that Support Translational Research Reproducibility. In: Research Reproducibility 2018 [Internet]. Salt Lake City, Utah, USA; 2018 [cited 2018 Oct 30]. Available from: //campusguides.lib.utah.edu/UtahRR18/abstracts

15. 15. Huser V, Kahn MG, Brown JS, Gouripeddi R. Methods for examining data quality in healthcare integrated data repositories. Pac Symp Biocomput Pac Symp Biocomput. 2018;23:628–33.

16. 16. Lund A, Gouripeddi R, Burnett N, Tran L-T, Mo P, Madsen R, Cummins M, Sward K, Facelli J. Enabling Reproducible Computational Modeling: The Utah PRISMS Ecosystem. In Salt Lake City, Utah, USA; 2018 [cited 2018 Oct 30]. Available from: //campusguides.lib.utah.edu/UtahRR18/abstracts

17. 17. Pflieger LT, Mason CC, Facelli JC. Uncertainty quantification in breast cancer risk prediction models using self-reported family health history. J Clin Transl Sci. 2017 Feb;1(1):53–9.

18. 18. Shao J, Gouripeddi R, Facelli J. Improving Clinical Trial Research Reproducibility using Reproducible Informatics Methods. In Salt Lake City, Utah, USA; 2018 [cited 2018 Oct 30]. Available from: //campusguides.lib.utah.edu/UtahRR18/abstracts

19. 19. Shao J, Gouripeddi R, Facelli JC. Semantic characterization of clinical trial descriptions from ClincalTrials.gov and patient notes from MIMIC-III. J Clin Transl Sci. 2017 Sep;1(S1):12–12.

20. 20. Tiase V, Gouripeddi R, Burnett N, Butcher R, Mo P, Cummins M, Sward K. Advancing Study Metadata Models to Support an Exposomic Informatics Infrastructure. In Ottawa, Canada; 2018 [cited 2018 Oct 30]. Available from: = http://www.eiseverywhere.com/ehome/294696/638649/?&t=8c531cecd4bb0a5efc6a0045f5bec0c3

21. 21. Wen J, Gouripeddi R, Facelli JC. Metadata Discovery of Heterogeneous Biomedical Datasets Using Token-Based Features. In: IT Convergence and Security 2017 [Internet]. Springer, Singapore; 2017 [cited 2017 Sep 6]. p. 60–7. (Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering). Available from: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-6451-7_8

22. 22. Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IjJ, Appleton G, Axton M, Baak A, Blomberg N, Boiten J-W, da Silva Santos LB, Bourne PE, Bouwman J, Brookes AJ, Clark T, Crosas M, Dillo I, Dumon O, Edmunds S, Evelo CT, Finkers R, Gonzalez-Beltran A, Gray AJG, Groth P, Goble C, Grethe JS, Heringa J, ’t Hoen PAC, Hooft R, Kuhn T, Kok R, Kok J, Lusher SJ, Martone ME, Mons A, Packer AL, Persson B, Rocca-Serra P, Roos M, van Schaik R, Sansone S-A, Schultes E, Sengstag T, Slater T, Strawn G, Swertz MA, Thompson M, van der Lei J, van Mulligen E, Velterop J, Waagmeester A, Wittenburg P, Wolstencroft K, Zhao J, Mons B. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data. 2016 Mar 15;3:160018.

23. 23. Ioannidis JPA. Meta-research: Why research on research matters. PLOS Biol. 2018 Mar 13;16(3):e2005468.

24. 24. Stodden V, Borwein J, Bailey DH. Setting the default to reproducible. Comput Sci Res SIAM News. 2013;46(5):4–6.

25. 25. Stodden V, McNutt M, Bailey DH, Deelman E, Gil Y, Hanson B, Heroux MA, Ioannidis JPA, Taufer M. Enhancing reproducibility for computational methods. Science. 2016 Dec 9;354(6317):1240–1.

26. 26. Stodden V, McNutt M, Bailey DH, Deelman E, Gil Y, Hanson B, Heroux MA, Ioannidis JPA, Taufer M. Enhancing reproducibility for computational methods. Science. 2016 Dec 9;354(6317):1240–1.

27. 27. Stodden V. Reproducible Research for Scientific Computing: Tools and Strategies for Changing the Culture. Comput Sci Eng. 2012 Jul 1;14(4):13–7.

28. 28. Baker M. Muddled meanings hamper efforts to fix reproducibility crisis. Nat News Available from: http://www.nature.com/news/muddled-meanings-hamper-efforts-to-fix-reproducibility-crisis-1.20076

29. 29. Barba LA. Terminologies for Reproducible Research. ArXiv180203311 Cs 2018 Feb 9; Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/1802.03311

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: To ameliorate the leaky pipeline of physician-scientists, we must address the factors that cause medical trainees to disengage from research. Here we describe the development of standardized Physician-Scientist Training Program guidelines that may be implemented across disciplines to address these challenges. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Maintenance of a robust pool of physician-scientists is critical to meet the rapidly growing need for novel therapeutics. A variety of factors contribute to the decline of this pool. Key among these are a lengthy training period that segregates research from clinical training, thus impeding research progress and milestones that allow for a successful research career. Through engagement of residency program directors and Vice Chairs of Research, we have created a series of guidelines that promote residency research tracks and enable better integration of research and clinical training time. Guidelines have been piloted in the Departments of Pediatrics, Medicine and Surgery in the context of 2 new R38-supported programs. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Our physician-Scientist Training Program (PSTP) guidelines were developed by our central Office of Physician-Scientist Development (OPSD) after a successful pilot of an integrated research residency program in the Department of Pediatrics [Duke Pediatric Research Scholars (DPRS); Hurst, et al, 2019], which has included 36 resident and fellow scholars over 3 years. To date, eight clinical departments have adopted our PSTP guidelines as part of their R38-supported or pending programs. The OPSD has recently created a tracking database for scholar metrics, which will further promote PSTP development by enabling centralized reporting on scholar success to individual programs. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: PSTP guidelines enable effective implementation of new programs by sharing best practices and lessons learned, standardizing expectations, and defining metrics of success. By promoting proven strategies for integrated clinical and research training, PSTP guidelines may aid in retaining trainees pursuing research careers.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Penn instituted a Professional Development Core (PDC) to complement existing CTS education programs. Sessions were designed to advance participant knowledge and skills in key competency areas including communication, expectation setting, implicit bias and organizational structure, self-efficacy and resilience in order to enhance abilities to successfully execute career and research goals. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The PDC enrolled 4 cohorts totaling 87 trainees and scholars from 2016-2019. This included 35% predoctoral trainees (27 MD, 3 PhD), 39% postdoctoral trainees (29 MD, 3 PhD, 2 VMD/DVM), and 26% junior faculty (16 MD, 6 MD/PhD, 1 PhD). The two-year curriculum consists of 14 lunchtime sessions held bimonthly during academic terms. Session structures include a variety of interactive presentations, activities and facilitated discussions as well as reading material, assessment tools, and case studies. Facilitators include topic experts in academia, entrepreneurship, communications, and professional and personal development. The program is evaluated qualitatively through student satisfaction surveys after each session. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Of the 2018-2019 participants, 90.8% rated the overall quality of PDC sessions as Very Good (56.05%) or Outstanding (34.75%). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Feedback indicates that the group benefited from combining predoctoral and postdoctoral trainees, although not all content was immediately relevant to early stage trainees. Trainees appreciated the opportunity to engage with experts in disciplines typically considered outside of traditional science but critical to CTS career success. The flexibility of the curriculum allowed for inclusion of timely topics, newer suites of sessions focus on the multiple dimensions of valuing your science.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The purpose of the mentored writing workgroup developed at The CCTS at the Rockefeller University (CCTS RU) was to promote scholarship among clinical research nurses (CRN). The goal was to publish and/or present their projects at national professional association meetings. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A two-part writing workshop was presented at RU in December 2018 and January 2019. Members of the RU nursing staff and CRNs from local institutions were invited to attend. Twenty-four CRNs participated in the workshops. The first workshop focused on the writing process, styles of writing and how to get started. The second concentrated on components of a manuscript, categories of papers, selection of the journal, and communications with the editorial team. After the workshops, the CRNs from RU was offered the opportunity to participate in the mentored writing workgroup. To participate, the CRN had to agree to attend scheduled writing meetings and submit written work for each session. The scheduled submission of written materials ensured the CRN was committed to completing their manuscripts or presentations. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Three CRNs from RU participated in the writing workgroup. Two papers were accepted for publication, and one manuscript is under-review, two abstracts accepted by an international professional organization, and two presentations conducted at an area nursing school and medical center. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: A mentored writing workgroup wherein participants commit to attend writing meetings and to submit written materials in a scheduled-matter can promote scholarship. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DESCRIPTION: NA.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Regardless of their career choices, today’s biomedical researchers need to blend great science with core skills ininnovation and entrepreneurship (I&E). The objective of this NIH-funded education program was to develop and test a pragmatic training program to teach relevant I&E skills. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We used a modified Delphi approach to identify 15 relevant competencies for I&E and the essential topics to include in the program. Learner interviews identified preferences for online training programs (short, high-quality audio-visual content, ability to self-navigate, peer and instructor interactions). The inaugural program included 7 short, online courses that addressed how to identify and validate opportunities for innovation, sell your innovation to diverse audiences, assess its ethical consequences, work in teams, and develop resilience as an innovator. It also included mentor support, a team-based capstone project, and an optional in-person boot camp. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: 51 students enrolled and 41 participants from 9 institutions completed the program, including pre- and post-doctoral students and junior faculty. They organized into 10 teams to complete the capstone project, with 6 teams pitching their innovation to fellow students and mentors at the boot camp. Students rated satisfaction with courses highly overall, with 79% stating they would be disappointed if the program was no longer available. Preliminary results suggest participants increased their knowledge about and ability to perform tasks taught throughout the program. Suggestions for improvement included providing more practical advice and real-world examples to complement educational videos. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The inaugural E4B program was well received and effective in increasing I&E skills. Improvements will include increased opportunity for mentor interactions and for advanced entrepreneurial training. The program is open for biomedical research trainees from all institutions with a CTSA award.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: To assess the impact of FLTCs on CTR on S and F from health professions and basic science academic programs island wide in Puerto Rico. Cycles supported by the Title V Cooperative Project at University of Puerto Rico-Medical Sciences Campus (UPRMSC) and Universidad Central del Caribe (UCC)(Title V). METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: After offering FLTCs in CTR to S and F from UPRMSC and UCC, Title V expanded it to S and F from other institutions island wide in PR. These FLTCs were offered the 2nd semester of 2018 and consisted of 20 hours of interdisciplinary sessions in: introduction to and definition of CTR; preparation of a CTR-presentation; how to interview/share a presentation of a CT researcher and to prepare a research question in CTR. To assess the knowledge of S and F in the above-mentioned skills and their continuation in the 2nd level of CTR training, surveys were administered: pre-test, at the beginning, post-test, sometime during the FLTCs, and satisfaction at the end of the FLTCs. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Fifty eight (58) S/F from UPRMSC, UCC and 7 other institutions participated. Forty two (42,72%) answered a pre-test and 31/42 (74%) completed the post-test. Results showed that S/F: who correctly defined CTR increased from 7% to 77 %; their ability to identify a CT researcher increased from 10% to 83%. Fifty five percent (55 %) (21/38) S/F that were certified in the FLTCs, answered the satisfaction survey. One hundred percent (100%) indicated that the materials offered contributed in the identification of a CT researcher and a topic in CTR; 100% answered that the FLTCs contributed higher knowledge in and provided new skills in CTR. Moreover, 31/38 (82%) S/F started the 2nd level of training. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The FLTCs were successful in increasing S/F knowledge of CTR and to further engage in 2nd level of trainings. Title V impact extended island wide, increasing the diversity of represented health professions and science fields among participants. The interventions were deemed to be of high quality.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: We have developed a comprehensive Translational Research Navigation Program to guide investigators all the way from protocol development through study closure. As the program evolved, we initially developed organizational tools and then restructured them into a series of checklists to ensure that critical elements were not excluded or duplicated. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A series of checklists to assure that all research elements, including regulatory, scientific, and institutional, are addressed from protocol inception through study closure were developed by clinical research coordinators/navigators. The checklists are periodically updated and modified to reflect changing local and national regulations and policies. The first tool became the “Protocol Development Checklist” and then additional tools were developed and modified into a suite of navigation checklists that include “Protocol Implementation Checklist,” “Protocol Conduct Checklist,” and “Protocol Completion Checklist.” RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The checklists have been incorporated into the Translational Research Navigation Program and have enhanced the organization and quality of protocols throughout their lifespan. For example, implementation of the Protocol Development Checklist resulted in a reduction in time to IRB approval (currently 10 days), and implementation of the Protocol Implementation Checklist has impacted the time from IRB approval to study start-up. The Protocol Conduct Checklist has aided investigators in being better prepared and more organized for study conduct activities and the Protocol Closure Checklist has assured timely protocol closure and regulatory compliance, including reporting to ClinicalTrials.gov. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Protocol checklists are powerful tools to enhance thoroughness, organization, and quality of the clinical research process. The Rockefeller University protocol checklists are available to the CTSA and Scientific Communities. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DESCRIPTION: NA.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Physician-scientists play a vital role in biomedical research but this chosen career path has many challenges, such as long training periods and funding. The University of Rochester (UR) CTSI pipeline programs address this by enabling medical trainees to partake in enriched research experiences. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The UR CTSI TL1 is a training grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS), which funds predoctoral trainees. The TL1-funded physician-scientist pipeline includes the Academic Research Track (ART) year-out program and the Medical Science Training Program (MSTP). We describe the characteristics and training outcomes of TL1-funded trainees. We also obtained testimonials of current and former trainees regarding their career component decision-making, and their perception of programs, in order to identify how best to address the challenges of the physician-scientist workforce, and to facilitate the transition between the clinic and bench. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: From 2006-2019, the UR CTSI has had 56 ART trainees and 17 MSTP trainees complete training; six trainees have transitioned into the MSTP after completing the ART program. As of 2019, 63 of 67 graduated trainees (94%) have continued their engagement in CTS after graduation. Importantly, our programs have facilitated the careers of 31 women (39.7%) and 12 under-represented minorities (15.4%). We will present a breadth of qualitative data to inform which parts of the TL1-related programs have been successful, and which parts could use programmatic improvement to aid the transition into the physician-scientist workforce. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Physician-scientist training barriers in the US have resulted in a shortage of these professionals in the clinical and translation workforce. Our data show the UR CTSI has been successful in addressing several of these challenges via the TL1-funded ART, MSTP, and ART/MSTP dual program pipeline.