There are two main schools of thought about statistical inference: frequentist and Bayesian. The frequentist approach relies solely on available data for predictions, while the Bayesian approach incorporates both data and prior knowledge about the event of interest. Bayesian methods were developed hundreds of years ago; however, they were rarely used due to computational challenges and conflicts between the two schools of thought. Recent advances in computational capabilities and a shift toward leveraging prior knowledge for inferences have led to increased use of Bayesian methods.

Many biostatisticians with expertise in frequentist approaches lack the skills to apply Bayesian techniques. To address this gap, four faculty experts in Bayesian modeling at the University of Michigan developed a practical, customized workshop series. The training, tailored to accommodate the schedules of full-time staff, focused on immersive, project-based learning rather than traditional lecture-based methods. Surveys were conducted to assess the impact of the program.

All 20 participants completed the program and when surveyed reported an increased understanding of Bayesian theory and greater confidence in using these techniques. Capstone projects demonstrated participants’ ability to apply Bayesian methodology. The workshop not only enhanced the participants’ skills but also positioned them to readily apply Bayesian techniques in their work.

Accommodating the schedules of full-time biostatistical staff enabled full participation. The immersive project-based learning approach resulted in building skills and increasing confidence among staff statisticians who were unfamiliar with Bayesian methods and their practical applications.

Traditionally, research institutions have valued individual achievements such as principal investigator and lead authorship status as primary indicators in the academic promotions process. However, the scientific process increasingly requires collaboration by teams of researchers across multiple disciplines, sometimes including experts outside academia, often referred to as “team science.” We sought to determine whether there is agreement about what constitutes team science at our academic institution and whether current promotion processes sufficiently incentivize faculty participation in team science.

We conducted 20 qualitative interviews with academic leaders (N = 24) at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) who supervise faculty promotions processes. Participants were asked to share their definitions of team science and the extent to which faculty receive credit for engaging in these activities during the promotions process. A subset of participants also completed a brief survey in which they ranked the importance of participation in team science relative to other factors that are traditionally valued in the promotions process. Interview data were examined by two analysts using structural coding. Descriptive analyses were conducted of survey responses.

Though team science is valued at UCSF, definitions of team science and the approach to assigning credit for team science in academic promotions processes varied widely. Participants suggested opportunities to bolster support for team science.

Efforts to define and provide transparent faculty incentives for team science should be prioritized at institutions, like UCSF, seeking to advance faculty engagement in collaborative research.

The institutions (i.e., hubs) making up the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded network of Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) share a mission to turn observations into interventions to improve public health. Recently, the focus of the CTSAs has turned increasingly from translational research (TR) to translational science (TS). The current NIH Funding Opportunity Announcement (PAR-21-293) for CTSAs stipulates that pilot studies funded through the CTSAs must be “focused on understanding a scientific or operational principle underlying a step of the translational process with the goal of developing generalizable solutions to accelerate translational research.” This new directive places Pilot Program administrators in the position of arbiters with the task of distinguishing between TR and TS projects. The purpose of this study was to explore the utility of a set of TS principles set forth by NCATS for distinguishing between TR and TS.

Twelve CTSA hubs collaborated to generate a list of Translational Science Principles questions. Twenty-nine Pilot Program administrators used these questions to evaluate 26 CTSA-funded pilot studies.

Factor analysis yielded three factors: Generalizability/Efficiency, Disruptive Innovation, and Team Science. The Generalizability/Efficiency factor explained the largest amount of variance in the questions and was significantly able to distinguish between projects that were verified as TS or TR (t = 6.92, p < .001) by an expert panel.

The seven questions in this factor may be useful for informing deliberations regarding whether a study addresses a question that aligns with NCATS’ vision of TS.

Midcareer is a critical transition point for biomedical research faculty and a common dropout point from an NIH-funded career. We report a study to assess the efficacy of a group peer mentoring program for diverse biomedical researchers in academic medicine, seeking to improve vitality, career advancement, and cross-cultural competence.

We conducted a stratified randomized controlled trial with a waitlist control group involving 40 purposefully diverse early midcareer research faculty from 16 states who had a first-time NIH R01 (or equivalent) award, a K training grant, or a similar major grant. The yearlong intervention (2 to 3 days quarterly) consisted of facilitated, structured, group peer mentoring. Main study aims were to enhance faculty vitality, self-efficacy in achieving research success, career advancement, mentoring others, and cultural awareness and appreciation of diversity in the workplace.

Compared to the control group, the intervention group’s increased vitality did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.20), but perceived change in vitality was 1.47 standard deviations higher (D = 1.47, P = 0.03). Self-efficacy for career advancement was higher in the intervention group (D = 0.41, P = 0.05) as was self-efficacy for research (D = 0.57, P = 0.02). The intervention group also valued diversity higher (D = 0.46, P = 0.02), had higher cognitive empathy (D = 0.85, P = 0.03), higher anti-sexism/racism skills (D = 0.71, P = 0.01), and higher self-efficacy in mentoring others (D = 1.14, P = 0.007).

The mentoring intervention resulted in meaningful change in important dimensions and skills among a national sample of diverse early midcareer biomedical faculty. This mentoring program holds promise for addressing the urgencies of sustaining faculty vitality and cross-cultural competence.

Research participation during undergraduate years has a powerful influence on career selection and attitudes toward scientific research. Most undergraduate research programs in academic health centers are oriented toward basic research or address a particular disease focus or research discipline. Undergraduate research programs that expose students to clinical and translational research may alter student perceptions about research and influence career selection.

We developed an undergraduate summer research curriculum, anchored upon a clinical and translational research study developed to address a common unmet needs in neonatal nurseries (e.g., assessment of neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome). Program topics reflected the cross-disciplinary expertise that contributed to the development of this “bedside to bench” study, including opioid addiction, vulnerable populations, research ethics, statistics, data collection and management, assay development, analytical laboratory analysis, and pharmacokinetics. The curriculum was delivered through three offerings over 12 months, using Zoom video-conferencing due to restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Nine students participated in the program. Two-thirds reported the course enhanced their understanding of clinical and translational research. Over three-quarters reported the curriculum topics were very good or excellent. In open-ended questions, students reported that the cross-disciplinary nature of the curriculum was the strongest aspect of the program.

The curriculum could be readily adapted by other Clinical and Translational Science Award programs seeking to provide clinical and translational research-oriented programs to undergraduate students. Application of cross-disciplinary research approaches to a specific clinical and translational research question provides students with relevant examples of translational research and translational science.

Midcareer research faculty are a vital part of the advancement of science in U.S. medical schools, but there are troubling trends in recruitment, retention, and burnout rates.

The primary sampling frame for this online survey was recipients of a single R01 or equivalent and/or K-award from 2013 to 2019. Inclusion criteria were 3–14 years at a U.S. medical school and rank of associate professor or two or more years as assistant professor. Forty physician investigators and Ph.D. scientists volunteered for a faculty development program, and 106 were propensity-matched controls. Survey items covered self-efficacy in career, research, work-life; vitality/burnout; relationships, inclusion, trust; diversity; and intention to leave academic medicine.

The majority (52%) reported receiving poor mentoring; 40% experienced high burnout and 41% low vitality, which, in turn, predicted leaving intention (P < 0.0005). Women were more likely to report high burnout (P = 0.01) and low self-efficacy managing work and personal life (P = 0.01) and to be seriously considering leaving academic medicine than men (P = 0.003). Mentoring quality (P < 0.0005) and poor relationships, inclusion, and trust (P < 0.0005) predicted leaving intention. Non-underrepresented men were very likely to report low identity self-awareness (65%) and valuing differences (24%) versus underrepresented men (25% and 0%; P < 0.0005). Ph.D.s had lower career advancement self-efficacy than M.D.s (P < .0005).

Midcareer Ph.D. and physician investigators faced significant career challenges. Experiences diverged by underrepresentation, gender, and degree. Poor quality mentoring was an issue for most. Effective mentoring could address the concerns of this vital component of the biomedical workforce.

Clinical trials are a vital component of translational science, providing crucial information on the efficacy and safety of new interventions and forming the basis for regulatory approval and/or clinical adoption. At the same time, they are complex to design, conduct, monitor, and report successfully. Concerns over the last two decades about the quality of the design and the lack of completion and reporting of clinical trials, characterized as a lack of “informativeness,” highlighted by the experience during the COVID-19 pandemic, have led to several initiatives to address the serious shortcomings of the United States clinical research enterprise.

Against this background, we detail the policies, procedures, and programs that we have developed in The Rockefeller University Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS), supported by a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program grant since 2006, to support the development, conduct, and reporting of informative clinical studies.

We have focused on building a data-driven infrastructure to both assist individual investigators and bring translational science to each element of the clinical investigation process, with the goal of both generating new knowledge and accelerating the uptake of that knowledge into practice.