↓ Skip to main content

Contribution of NIH funding to new drug approvals 2010–2016

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
62 news outlets
blogs
12 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1649 tweeters
facebook
10 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Contribution of NIH funding to new drug approvals 2010–2016
Published in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, February 2018
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1715368115
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ekaterina Galkina Cleary, Jennifer M. Beierlein, Navleen Surjit Khanuja, Laura M. McNamee, Fred D. Ledley

Abstract

This work examines the contribution of NIH funding to published research associated with 210 new molecular entities (NMEs) approved by the Food and Drug Administration from 2010-2016. We identified >2 million publications in PubMed related to the 210 NMEs (n= 131,092) or their 151 known biological targets (n= 1,966,281). Of these, >600,000 (29%) were associated with NIH-funded projects in RePORTER. This funding included >200,000 fiscal years of NIH project support (1985-2016) and project costs >$100 billion (2000-2016), representing ∼20% of the NIH budget over this period. NIH funding contributed to every one of the NMEs approved from 2010-2016 and was focused primarily on the drug targets rather than on the NMEs themselves. There were 84 first-in-class products approved in this interval, associated with >$64 billion of NIH-funded projects. The percentage of fiscal years of project funding identified through target searches, but not drug searches, was greater for NMEs discovered through targeted screening than through phenotypic methods (95% versus 82%). For targeted NMEs, funding related to targets preceded funding related to the NMEs, consistent with the expectation that basic research provides validated targets for targeted screening. This analysis, which captures basic research on biological targets as well as applied research on NMEs, suggests that the NIH contribution to research associated with new drug approvals is greater than previously appreciated and highlights the risk of reducing federal funding for basic biomedical research.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,649 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 134 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 16%
Other 13 10%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 11 8%
Other 35 26%
Unknown 17 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 10%
Chemistry 10 7%
Social Sciences 10 7%
Other 42 31%
Unknown 24 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1619. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 March 2021.
All research outputs
#3,087
of 17,186,405 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#119
of 88,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95
of 377,311 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#7
of 994 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,186,405 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 88,897 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 377,311 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 994 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.