OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Participating in out-of-school activities (i.e., sports) is associated with improved physical and mental health, but racial/ethnic and income disparities persist. Our goal was to describe parent perspectives to understand how to enhance family engagement in these activities, especially in low-income Black and Latinx communities. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We recruited parents through a large urban parks and recreation department located in Los Angeles County (LAC) and two community-based organizations who provide services primarily to low-income Black and Latinx residents in LAC. We conducted semi-structed English or Spanish interviews with parents of children ages 6-17 about the impact of activities on families, experiences making it difficult or easier for their child to be involved, and recommendations to meet their needs and facilitate family engagement. We coded the interviews using Dedoose and then performed thematic analysis. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We completed 34 interviews (17 English, 17 Spanish). Parents shared these central ideas about out-of-school activities: (1) they support families and promote healthy child development; (2) they must create a safe environment and promote a sense of belonging for all families; and (3) service delivery changes reduced barriers, but activities often remained inaccessible. Barriers included lack of awareness about low-cost options, online enrollment, financial costs, waitlists, program timing, inaccessible parks/pools, safety, inconsistent quality, few opportunities for families to participate together, and a desire for more inclusive practices around race, culture, language, gender, children with special needs, and parent involvement. Parents offered recommendations to increase family engagement. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Involving parents in optimizing out-of-school activities may improve access, uptake, and quality of these health-promoting activities in low-income Black and Latinx communities.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: 1.Identify barriers to pursuing research for physician trainees 2.Develop a sustainable pipeline of physician-scientists at Duke 3.Coordinate physician-scientist development programs across the School of Medicine under one central Office 4.Provide infrastructure and resources for all physician-scientists 5.Increase the number of MDs and MD/PhDs who pursue, succeed, and are retained in research METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: To establish a baseline understanding of the needs and concerns of physician-scientist trainees at Duke, we conducted focus groups using a standardized interview guide and thematic analysis. Findings from these focus groups were used to develop a framework for support, leading to the creation of the Office of Physician-Scientist Development (OPSD) housed centrally within the Duke School of Medicine. The OPSD integrates programs and resources for multiple populations including medical students, residents, fellows, junior faculty, and faculty mentors. Pipeline programs will also be developed to enhance research engagement in targeted student populations prior to medical school. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: A total of 45 students and faculty participated in the focus groups and structured interviews (1st year medical student, n=11; 4th year medical students, n=11; residents/fellows, n=13; junior faculty, n=11). While participants raised a number of specific issues, one key message emerged: non-PhD MDs in basic research felt they lacked opportunities for directed training. Moreover, they felt the need to teach themselves many critical skills through trial and error. This has led to perceptions that they cannot compete effectively with PhDs and MD-PhD scientists for research funding and positions. Consensus recommendations included: better guidance in choosing mentors, labs, and projects; central resource for information relevant to physician scientists; training specifically tailored to physician scientists conducting laboratory-based research; improved infrastructure and well-defined training pathways; and assistance with grant preparation. To-date, over 90 students, residents, and fellows have been identified who identify as laboratory-based physician scientists. Additional efforts are underway to identify and characterize the broader range of physician-scientist students and trainees at Duke. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Our planning study revealed specific steps forward toward developing a robust community of physician-scientists at Duke. As a first step, the Dean of the School of Medicine has appointed an Associate Dean of Physician-Scientist Development to oversee a new Office of Physician-Scientist Development (OPSD) being launched in December of 2018. The OPSD will offer four primary programs. 1) A concierge mentoring program will assist new trainees in identifying research areas of interest and mentors. Trainees will receive periodic contact to provide additional support as needed and promote success. 2) A physician-scientist training program is being created to provide training specific to laboratory research skills as well as career and professional development training to complement existing clinical and translational research programs. 3) Integrated training pathways will provide additional mentored research training for those pursuing research careers. Pathways will capitalize on existing resources from R38 programs, while pursuing additional R38 and R25 support. 4) An MD-Scientist funding program has been developed to provide additional research funding and protected time for students pursuing a second research year. Through the support and programming offered by the OPSD, we anticipate decreased perceptions of barriers to pursuing a physician-scientist career and increased satisfaction with training opportunities. Over time, we expect such support to increase the number of MD students pursuing research as a career and the number of residents, fellows, and MD junior faculty remaining in research careers.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: To establish a state-wide research registry of diverse participants. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We garnered broad institutional and community support by involving TRI’s Community Engagement team, its Community Advisory Board (CAB), and 3 UAMS patient CABs in selecting Web site content, images, and colors. Using this feedback, the TRI Recruitment Unit (RU), in conjunction with UAMS Communications and the Center for Health Literacy, developed the materials and crafted comprehensive communication and recruitment strategies. The UAMS Center for Pacific Islander Health, Hispanic faculty, and CAB members translated materials. UAMS IT programmed the user-friendly site to allow registration from smartphones and i-Pads and linked to UAMS patient electronic health messages. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The RU committee implemented successful innovative strategies, including recruiting at the Arkansas State Fair and ballgames, attended by people of all races, ages, and socio-economic levels. Using i-Pads at the sites, recruitment took <5 minutes/registrant. Within 8 months, >2400 participants from across Arkansas had joined the registry: 14% African-Americans, 8% Pacific Islanders, 5% Hispanic, and 3% Native American. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Involving CAB multidisciplinary input to design and implement recruitment materials was highly successful. Despite challenges of recruiting under-represented groups, the registry includes 30% minorities. By tracking registrants’ demographics with Lime Survey software, the RU will prioritize future recruitment events to maximize diversity of registrants.

ABSTRACT IMPACT: Practical evaluation approaches using case studies and success stories present a chain of evidence to demonstrate to stakeholders that resources are being used as required and producing desired results and effectively document the impact of clinical and translational research. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: This project describes the overall evaluation plan of the Miami CTSI by combining the Translational Sciences Benefits Model (TSBM) and the Kirkpatrick Model to evaluate scientific outcomes and impact of CTSI-supported research, and education and training programs developed by the CTSI. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Using case studies, the TSBM framework will be applied to CTSI-supported projects to evaluate scientific outcomes and impact on domains that include: clinical and medical; community and public health; economic; legislative and policy. We will apply the framework to projects that have received funding through CTSI’s Pilot and Translational Studies and Mentored Translational Scholars KL2 Programs, and that have at least one publication. Application of the Kirkpatrick model will be demonstrated by using the four levels of evaluation - reaction, learning, behavior, and results - to assess training outcomes and impact of the KL2 and the I-Corps Programs. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: About 20 pilot projects and 8 KL2 research projects will be assessed using the TSBM framework. We anticipate that all projects will show potential or demonstrated benefits in at least two of the four domains of the model. KL2 Program evaluation was conducted by collecting data on all the four levels of the Kirkpatrick model. Reaction and learning were assessed through feedback from KL2 scholars. Behavior was assessed using semi-annual updates on research and training progress of the scholars and the program. Results were measured using indicators such as program graduates that continue to engage in clinical and translational research and their transition to research independence. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: Our evaluation approach using the two models is well aligned with overall CTSI aims and its three focus areas - infrastructure, education and culturalization/community engagement and will allow us to conduct a comprehensive yet practical evaluation of Miami CTSI programs.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Diabetic retinopathy is the leading cause of blindness in adults aged 25–64 years. The prevalence of diabetic retinopathy is projected to increase 4-fold by 2050. Racial and ethnic minorities have a higher prevalence and greater severity of diabetic retinopathy. Over 50% of racial and ethnic minorities are not screened for diabetic retinopathy per guidelines. With timely diagnosis and sight-saving treatment, blindness from diabetic retinopathy is largely preventable. The objective of this study is to identify racial and ethnic disparities in the population that do not know they have diabetic retinopathy and to compare those disparities to those in the population that do know they have diabetic retinopathy. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Specifically, we have identified a nationally representative survey and clinical examination data to estimate the prevalence of undiagnosed diabetic retinopathy, to identify racial and ethnic disparities in that population, and to compare those disparities in the population with known diabetic retinopathy. We hypothesize that racial and ethnic disparities will be higher in the population with undiagnosed diabetic retinopathy in comparison to the population with known diabetic retinopathy. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We hypothesize that racial and ethnic disparities will be higher in the population with undiagnosed diabetic retinopathy in comparison to the population with known diabetic retinopathy. The results of that analysis will instruct qualitative interviews that will advance the understanding of the factors that contribute to the decision whether to be screened for diabetic retinopathy. A decision tree will be created to categorize the hierarchy of barriers and facilitators. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: A better understanding of the population with undiagnosed diabetic retinopathy and the factors that influence the decision to get screened will help us not only to address disparities in diabetic retinopathy, but also to prevent blindness from retinopathy.

Objectives/Goals: By synergizing our efforts, we believe this to be a fruitful collaboration for UCLA Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) and California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM). With multiple levels to stem cell training, focusing on specific educational goals is integral to our pilot event. This was held on July 26th and offered an exciting and valuable day for trainees. Methods/Study Population: Leadership was comprised of leaders at the UCLA Health Alpha Clinic, Broad Stem Cell Research Center (BSCRC), Human Gene and Cell Therapy Facility (HGCTF), UCLA Campus, Clinical and Translational Research Center (CTRC), and the Santa Barbara COMPASS program. Trainees from UCLA, CSUN, and UCSB were represented. The agenda included a didactic overview of the entire translational and clinical research process from discovery in the laboratory to bedside nursing in the patient care areas. Onsite tours were conducted at the HGCTF and the CTRC with a meet and greet with the nurses. The curriculum covered the clinical research process, regulatory requirements, ethics, current clinical trials, manufacturing, quality control, and compliance. A career opportunities discussion and network sessions closed out the day. Results/Anticipated Results: Of the 13 trainees who attended the session, 10 replied to the evaluation survey. All the responding students (100%) rated the event as “excellent” and found it to be “highly valuable” to their current training program. The trainees indicated that they were “very likely” (100%) to recommend a friend to attend this type of event. When asked what they liked most about the event, they indicated that the programming was “insightful, and “inspiring” for seeing beyond their current trainee responsibilities. They valued the responsiveness to questions, sharing experiences, and mentoring for career advancement. They especially liked the tours at the HGCTF and the session with the front-line nurses. Changes for the future will include timing and length, information on graduate programs and more student interactions. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Overall, our first educational session was very well-received by both trainees and staff involved as stakeholders. Due to the success of this inaugural event, we intend to continue to draw on the expertise of this collaboration and use a similar blueprint for future events and scientific sessions.

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.

CTSI Career Development Award (KL2) programs provide junior faculty with protected time and multidisciplinary, mentored research training in clinical and translational science research. The KL2 Visiting Scholars Program was developed to promote collaborative cross-CTSA training, leverage academic strengths at host CTSAs, and support the career development of participating scholars through experiential training and the development of new partnerships. This manuscript provides a detailed programmatic description and reports outcomes from post-visit and outcomes surveys. Since 2016, 12 scholars have completed the program, with 6 scheduled to complete it in 2021. Post-visit surveys (n = 12) indicate all scholars reported the program valuable to career development, 11 reported benefit for research development, and 11 expansion of collaborative networks. Outcomes surveys (n = 11) revealed subsequent scholar interaction with host institution faculty for 10 scholars, 2 collaborative grant submissions (1 funded), 2 planned grant submissions, 1 published collaborative manuscript, and 3 planned manuscript/abstract submissions. The Visiting Scholars Program is a cost- and time-efficient program that leverages the academic strengths of CTSAs. The program enhanced KL2 scholar training by expanding their professional portfolio, promoting research development, and expanding collaborative networks. Resources to support the program are shared in this report to expedite the development of similar programs at regional and national levels.

The African American population of Buffalo, New York experiences striking race-based health disparities due to adverse social determinants of health. A team of community leaders and university faculty determined that a community dialogue was needed to focus research and advocacy on the root causes of these disparities. In response, we organized the annual Igniting Hope conference series that has become the premier conference on health disparities in the region. The series, now supported by an R13 conference grant from NCATS, has been held four times (2018–2021) and has attracted community members, community leaders, university faculty, and trainees. The agenda includes talks by national leaders and breakout/working groups that led to a new state law that has reduced disproportionate traffic-ticketing and drivers' license suspensions in Black neighborhoods; mitigation of the disproportionate COVID-19 fatalities in Black communities; and the launching of a university-supported institute. We describe the key elements of success for a conference series designed by a community–university partnership to catalyze initiatives that are having an impact on social determinants of health in Buffalo.

The prioritization of English language in clinical research is a barrier to translational science. We explored promising practices to advance the inclusion of people who speak languages other than English in research conducted within and supported by NIH Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs. Key informant interviews were conducted with representatives (n = 24) from CTSA hubs (n = 17). Purposive sampling was used to identify CTSA hubs focused on language inclusion. Hubs electing to participate were interviewed via Zoom. Thematic analysis was performed to analyze interview transcripts. We report on strategies employed by hubs to advance linguistic inclusion and influence institutional change that were identified. Strategies ranged from translations, development of culturally relevant materials and consultations to policies and procedural changes and workforce initiatives. An existing framework was adapted to conceptualize hub strategies. Language justice is paramount to bringing more effective treatments to all people more quickly. Inclusion will require institutional transformation and CTSA hubs are well positioned to catalyze change.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Approximately 10% of COVID-19 patients experience multiple symptoms weeks and months after the acute phase of infection. Our goal was to use advanced machine learning methods to identify PASC phenotypes based on their symptom profiles, and their association with critical adverse outcomes, with the goal of designing future targeted interventions. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Data. All COVID-19 outpatients from 12 University of Minnesota hospitals and 60 clinics. Independent variables consisted of 20 CDC-defined PASC symptoms extracted from clinical notes using NLP. Covariates included demographics, and outcomes included New Psychological Diagnostic Evaluation, and Number of PASC Hospital Visits (>=5). Cases (n=3235) consisted of patients with at least one symptom, and controls (n=3034) consisted of patients with no symptoms. Method. (1) Used bipartite network analysis and modularity maximization to identify patient-symptom biclusters. (2) Used multivariable logistic regression (adjusted for demographics and corrected through Bonferroni) to measure the odds ratio of each patient bicluster to adverse outcomes, compared to controls, and to each of the other biclusters. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The analysis identified 6 PASC phenotypes (http://www.skbhavnani.com/DIVA/Images/Fig-1-PASC-Network.jpg), which was statistically significant compared to 1000 random permutations of the data (PASC=.31, Random Median=.27, z=11, P<.01). Three of the clusters (Cluster-1, Cluster-4, and Cluster-5 encircled with ovals in Fig. 1) contained CNS-related symptoms, which had statistically significant risk for one or both of the adverse outcomes. For example, Cluster-1 with critical CNS symptoms (depression, insomnia, anxiety, brain-fog/difficulty-thinking), had a significantly higher OR compared to the controls for New Psychological Diagnostic Evaluation (OR=6.6, CI=4.9-9.1, P-corr<.001), in addition to having a significantly higher ORs for the same outcome compared to all the other clusters. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The results identified distinct PASC phenotypes based on symptom profiles, with three of them related to CNS symptoms, each of which had significantly higher risk for specific adverse outcomes compared to controls. We will test whether these phenotypes replicate in the N3C data, and explore their translation into triage and treatment strategies.

ABSTRACT IMPACT: Recommendations for increasing trainee productivity will be highlighted. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Using a combination of qualitative (interview) and quantitative (publications tracking) data, we undertook to describe the hurdles and concerns impeding academic accomplishments among T and K awardees at one CTSA hub and to examine whether hurdles at 6 months would predict academic output within one year following completion of the training program. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 trainees (28 TL1 and 8 KL2) 6 months into their training. Interview transcripts were analyzed using Atlas.ti to identify hurdles (factors that had already impeded research progress) and concerns (future challenges anticipated by the trainee). PubMed searches yielded the number of publications within one year of exiting the training program. Frequencies of hurdles and concerns were examined to characterize the factors most likely to impact trainee progress during the first 6 months of their training program. Among 18 trainees who had completed their training, the mean number of publications within one year of exiting the program (identified via verified PubMed searches) was compared across the total number of hurdles reported at 6 months (range = 0 to 3). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The thematic analysis yielded 19 categories of hurdles and 14 categories of concerns. The top three hurdles were technological challenges (e.g., issues with equipment or data reduction; reported by 63% of trainees), professional competing responsibilities (40%), and navigating collaborations (30%). The top three concerns were future funding (33%), potential as an independent researcher (27%), and institutional context (e.g., departmental structure; 23%). The number of hurdles reported at 6 months significantly predicted number of publications one year post-exit (F (3,14) = 3.14, p < .05). Trainees reporting zero hurdles generated a mean of 8.67 publications; those with 3 hurdles generated a mean of 2.4 publications. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: Future concerns were completely different from past hurdles, suggesting that the issues impeding research progress are not anticipated. Results suggest trainees would benefit from training related to how to balance competing professional responsibilities and navigate collaborations and that early attention to hurdles may enhance productivity.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of a junior faculty mentoring program on change in confidence in key academic skills. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The Department of Medicine at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center enrolled 33 mentees over three years (2015-2018) in a mentoring program that consisted of monthly interactive seminars focused on topics related to building academic careers, works-in-progress, and pairing of each mentee with a mentor. Mentees were asked about their confidence in key academic skills prior to and after completing the program. Confidence levels were assessed on a seven point scale, ranging from 1 (weak) to 7 (strong). Mean confidence levels were compared between pre and post surveys using independent samples t-test. Matching was not accounted for because not all individuals who completed the pre survey also completed the post survey and vice-versa. Of those mentees who completed both pre and post surveys, confidence scores were analyzed using Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test, with similar results to those reported here. Each mentoring session was evaluated by those in attendance at the end of each particular session with possible scores of 1 (unsatisfactory) to 5 (excellent). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: On average the mentees had a fair level of confidence in all nine areas assessed at baseline, with the exception of how to get funding (2.4 ± 1.7). Confidence increased in all areas assessed, and except for how to write a paper (p=.05) all represented a significant increase in confidence (Table 1). Evaluations of each of the mentoring sessions were high, with mean values ranging from 4.3 to 4.9 on the five point scale. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: This mentoring program significantly improved mentees’ confidence in identifying their own professional values and goals, as well as knowing how to turn education into scholarship, work with a mentor, integrate work and life, and give a presentation.

Objectives/Goals: Our study’s objective is to evaluate RadOnc-GPT, a GPT-4o powered LLM, in generating responses to in-basket messages related to prostate cancer treatment in the Radiation Oncology department. By integrating it with electronic health record (EHR) systems, the goal is to assess its impact on clinician workload, response quality, and efficiency in healthcare communication. Methods/Study Population: RadOnc-GPT was integrated with patient EHRs from both hospital-wide and radiation-oncology-specific databases. The study examined 158 pre-recorded in-basket message interactions from 90 non-metastatic prostate cancer patients. Quantitative natural language processing analysis and two randomized single-blinded grading studies, involving four clinicians and four nurses, were conducted to evaluate RadOnc-GPT’s response quality in completeness, correctness, clarity, empathy, and estimated editing time. Response times were measured to estimate the time saved for clinicians and nurses. The study population included patient messages across all phases of care (pre-, during, and post-treatment) for those undergoing radiotherapy. Results/Anticipated Results: In the single-blinded grader study, clinician graders evaluated 316 responses (158 from human care teams and 158 from RadOnc-GPT). Results showed RadOnc-GPT outperformed human responses in empathy and clarity, while humans excelled in completeness and correctness. Sentiment analyses using TextBlob and VADER revealed RadOnc-GPT responses had a positive mean score of 0.25, whereas human responses clustered around neutral. VADER analysis indicated a high median score for RadOnc-GPT, nearing 1.0, reflecting predominantly positive sentiment, while human responses displayed a broader sentiment range, indicating sensitivity to context. Clinicians averaged 3.60 minutes (SD 1.44) to respond, compared to 6.39 minutes (SD 4.05) for nurses, highlighting RadOnc-GPT’s efficiency in generating timely responses. Discussion/Significance of Impact: RadOnc-GPT effectively generated responses to individualized patient in-basket messages, comparable to those from radiation oncologists and nurses. While human oversight is still necessary to avoid errors, RadOnc-GPT can speed up response times and reduce pressure on care teams, shifting their role from drafting to reviewing responses.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: (1) Determine person (sex, age, education level), environment (marital status, living alone, insurance), and health and illness (BMI, type of AF, comorbidities) characteristics that are associated with outcomes (QOL, symptom severity, and emotional and functional status). (2) Determine the association of symptom management strategies (ablation, cardioversion, and rate and rhythm control medications) and outcomes (QOL, symptom severity, and emotional and functional status). (3) Test person (sex, age, and education level) and environment (marital status, living alone, insurance) characteristics as moderators of the effect of symptom management strategies (ablation, cardioversion, and rate and rhythm control medications) on outcomes (QOL, symptom severity, and emotional and functional status). METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: AF patients (≥18 years of age) already enrolled in the PaTH study will be included. To date, 1026 total participants have been enrolled. Based on the enrolled participants, 92% (945) of our study population are Caucasian and 36% (362) are female. The age range of the enrolled participants is: 2% (16) 18−39, 4% (42) 40−49, 11% (108) 50−59, 33% (343) 60−69, 34% (353) 70−79, and 16% (162) 80+. Participants are recruited through in-person, email, phone, patient portal messaging and post mail techniques to ensure a representative sample. The PaTH study integrates electronic health record and insurance claims data with patient-reported outcome measures collected through online surveys. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We hypothesize that sex, older age, low education level, living alone, absence of partner, absence of insurance coverage, high BMI, and a high number of comorbidities will be associated with lower QOL, high symptom severity, and low emotional and functional status. We further hypothesize that symptom management strategies will be associated with higher QOL, low symptom severity, and high emotional and functional status, and that these associations will be moderated by person and environment characteristics. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The proposed research is an important first step in determining potential causes of person and environment differences in symptom severity. It will lead to tailored symptom management interventions for individuals most at risk for experiencing high symptom severity.

Objectives/Goals: Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) use prior to bariatric surgery may represent a novel approach to treating obesity. The objectives of this study were to describe trends in pre-bariatric GLP1 use, investigate social and clinical factors associated with their use, and evaluate differences in clinical outcomes based on preoperative GLP1RA use. Methods/Study Population: Patients who underwent bariatric surgery at three Indiana hospitals from 2018 to 2023 were identified. Patients who utilized GLP1 in the year preceding surgery were compared to those who did not. Social determinants of health included insurance, income, and unemployment. Outcomes included rates of GLP1 use, 30-day postoperative readmissions, ED visits, and percent total weight lost (%TWL) at one year. Associations between preoperative GLP1 use and outcomes of interest were evaluated using multivariable logistic and linear regressions. Results/Anticipated Results: Of 2,169 patients who underwent surgery, 293 (13.5%) utilized GLP1 preoperatively. The rate of GLP1 utilization increased threefold from 2018 to 2023. Males were more likely to receive preoperative GLP1 (20.1% vs, 12.2%, p<0.001). There were no significant differences in social determinants of health or 30-day postoperative outcomes between patients who did and did not use GLP1RA preoperatively. Similarly, there were no significant differences in %TWL at one year postoperatively between groups (median 25.5% vs. 27.3%, coefficient: -0.78, 95%CI: -2.26–0.70). Discussion/Significance of Impact: Utilization of GLP1 in the year prior to bariatric surgery has significantly increased. Preoperative GLP1 use is not associated with worse 30-day outcomes or differences in %TWL at one year postoperatively. Further work is needed to evaluate whether GLP1 dosing and duration of treatment impact postoperative outcomes.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Several studies compare perioperative parameters and postoperative morphology of open cranial vault remodeling (CVR) and endoscopic-assisted craniectomy (EAC) in the treatment of sagittal craniosynostosis. However, data on neurodevelopmental outcomes comparing these techniques is lacking. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Patients with repaired sagittal synostosis were enrolled from a single tertiary care center between five and fifteen years of age. Patients with any craniofacial syndrome (e.g., 22q11.2 deletion) or other medical conditions that could affect neurodevelopment were excluded. Neurodevelopment was measured using the Differential Ability Scale-II (DAS-II). The General Cognitive Ability (GCA) score was the primary outcome measure, describing overall intellectual ability. Secondary outcome measures were measurements of cephalic index (CI) from pre- and postoperative imaging studies. Family socioeconomic status (SES) was estimated using the Hollingshead index (total score, continuous). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: 26 patients [10 CVR (2 Female:8 Male), 16 EAC (6 F:10 M)] were studied. Mean age at repair was greater with CVR than EAC (15.5 ± 8.5 months vs 3.5 ± 1.3 months, respectively, p < 0.001). Mean age at DAS-II testing was 9.0 ± 2.2 years. Patients GCA scores were within the average range relative to test norms (CVR 95.7 ± 15.4 vs EAC 102.6 ± 17.4). After adjusting for SES and preoperative CI, group differences in GCA were modest and statistically nonsignificant (p = 0.646). GCA scores were associated with SES (p = 0.054) but not preop CI (p = 0.479). Differences between CVR and EAC were not statistically significant for any of the imaging parameters (pre and postop CI, pre to postop change in CI, or age at postop imaging; 0.131 <= p <= 0.867). None of the independent variables were significantly associated with postop CI (0.140 <= p <= 0.689). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Interim analysis of the preliminary data suggests no association between surgical procedure and cognitive and morphological outcomes at school-age in patients with sagittal craniosynostosis who underwent CVR versus EAC. Collection of data continues, with the goal to enroll 50 participants in each group by 2022.