INTRODUCTION: To fulfill its mission, the NIH Office of Disease Prevention systematically monitors NIH investments in applied prevention research. Specifically, the Office focuses on research in humans involving primary and secondary prevention, and prevention-related methods. Currently, the NIH uses the Research, Condition, and Disease Categorization system to report agency funding in prevention research. However, this system defines prevention research broadly to include primary and secondary prevention, studies on prevention methods, and basic and preclinical studies for prevention. A new methodology was needed to quantify NIH funding in applied prevention research. METHODS: A novel machine learning approach was developed and evaluated for its ability to characterize NIH-funded applied prevention research during fiscal years 2012-2015. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, accuracy, and F1 score of the machine learning method; the Research, Condition, and Disease Categorization system; and a combined approach were estimated. Analyses were completed during June-August 2017. RESULTS: Because the machine learning method was trained to recognize applied prevention research, it more accurately identified applied prevention grants (F1 = 72.7%) than the Research, Condition, and Disease Categorization system (F1 = 54.4%) and a combined approach (F1 = 63.5%) with p<0.001. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrated the use of machine learning as an efficient method to classify NIH-funded research grants in disease prevention. Published by Elsevier Inc.
INTRODUCTION: To fulfill its mission, the NIH Office of Disease Prevention systematically monitors NIH investments in applied prevention research. Specifically, the Office focuses on research in humans involving primary and secondary prevention, and prevention-related methods. Currently, the NIH uses the Research, Condition, and Disease Categorization system to report agency funding in prevention research. However, this system defines prevention research broadly to include primary and secondary prevention, studies on prevention methods, and basic and preclinical studies for prevention. A new methodology was needed to quantify NIH funding in applied prevention research. METHODS: A novel machine learning approach was developed and evaluated for its ability to characterize NIH-funded applied prevention research during fiscal years 2012-2015. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, accuracy, and F1 score of the machine learning method; the Research, Condition, and Disease Categorization system; and a combined approach were estimated. Analyses were completed during June-August 2017. RESULTS: Because the machine learning method was trained to recognize applied prevention research, it more accurately identified applied prevention grants (F1 = 72.7%) than the Research, Condition, and Disease Categorization system (F1 = 54.4%) and a combined approach (F1 = 63.5%) with p<0.001. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrated the use of machine learning as an efficient method to classify NIH-funded research grants in disease prevention. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: David M Murray; Wilma Peterman Cross; Denise Simons-Morton; Jody Engel; Barry Portnoy; Jessica Wu; Paris A Watson; Susanne Olkkola Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Ian Pan; Laura B Nolan; Rashida R Brown; Romana Khan; Paul van der Boor; Daniel G Harris; Rayid Ghani Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Anthony J Rosellini; John Monahan; Amy E Street; Maria V Petukhova; Nancy A Sampson; David M Benedek; Paul Bliese; Murray B Stein; Robert J Ursano; Ronald C Kessler Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2017-08-14 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: David S Carrell; Scott Halgrim; Diem-Thy Tran; Diana S M Buist; Jessica Chubak; Wendy W Chapman; Guergana Savova Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2014-01-30 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Nicholas S Roetker; C David Page; James A Yonker; Vicky Chang; Carol L Roan; Pamela Herd; Taissa S Hauser; Robert M Hauser; Craig S Atwood Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2013-08-08 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: David M Murray; Jennifer Villani; Ashley J Vargas; Jocelyn A Lee; Ranell L Myles; Jessica Y Wu; Patricia L Mabry; Sheri D Schully Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2018-10-25 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Ashley J Vargas; Kyle Sprow; Jennifer L Lerman; Jennifer Villani; Karen S Regan; Rachel M Ballard Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Carlos Gallo; Karen Abram; Nanette Hannah; Lauren Caton; Barbara Cimaglio; Mark McGovern; C Hendricks Brown Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-01-28 Impact factor: 3.240