MSTP NRSA Award Rates Normalized For Eligible Trainees as of 2023

[near_airport]

Hi all,

Inspired by previous threads (which I have included below), I wanted to compile some up-to-date information on predoctoral awards across NIH funded MSTPs. I did my best to collect data on the number of currently enrolled trainees eligible for NRSA funding across each program to get a more accurate idea of funding rates, and plotted it for a better overall look at the data. Eligible trainees were defined as trainees currently in the thesis phase of their programs. The funding rate makes the (generous) assumption that 100% of eligible trainees in a given program apply for the F30/F31 predoctoral grant, which fails to account for trainees with research interests that are either non-biomedical or in an area where the corresponding NIH IC does not fund an F30 (NINDS, NIAMS, NLM).

This data is limited in that it does not capture the number of active non-NRSA predoctoral grants (e.g. NDSEG, AHA, Hertz, etc), which artificially decreases the percentage of funded students. Additionally, the data is most likely not up to date with regards to newly funded applications.

I used the NIGMS TWD Dashboard, AAMC Table B-12, and double-checked my numbers based on information provided by individual program websites. However, this does not guarantee that this data is free of errors, and I would appreciate any feedback and/or corrections. An additional point of interest is that UC Davis has both a non-NIH funded MD/PhD program, and a NIGMS T32 funded DVM/PhD program, whose data is included below.

As mentioned by Neuronix, the data is further complicated because not all NIH ICs fund F30 grants (NINDS, NIAMS, and NLM), and individual trainees may choose not to submit an F30 due to a lack of appropriate IC. So the data is further biased based on the individual strengths of a given program and the research interests of the student body.

Finally, this JCI article that looks at longitudinal impact of NRSA funding on future K (postdoctoral) and R (independent) funding.

Data: F30s and MD/PhD programs, program size

Hey All, 3 years ago @Fencer posted some data on NIH F30 NRSA awards and the size of MD/PhD programs. Because I've been playing around with ggplot2 in R and was interested to see if anything had changed since, I followed his methodology and used the NIH RePORTER system to search for active...

forums.studentdoctor.net

My 2020 MD-PhD Program Benchmark Data Compilation

Hi everyone, While trying to juggle MCAT studying and research, I've begun panicking thinking that I’ll have no chance of getting into any MD/PhD programs next cycle and my future will be abysmal (as I do from time to time :laugh: ). Because of that, I've turned to digging around for data to...

forums.studentdoctor.net

NIH F30 NRSA awards and Size of MD/PhD Programs

The NIH F30 NRSA (or the F31) is probably the most prestigious award that MD/PhD students can earn by themselves. This funding mechanism provides funding for MD/PhD students to pursue their research as well as pay for 2 years of medical school. MSTPs have on average 10-25% of their positions...

forums.studentdoctor.net

Updated for 2018: F30s and MD/PhD Programs

After looking at the post @Lucca made in 2016, I decided to make an updated one with 2018 data. Partly because I wanted to know how the program I chose was doing, but mostly because I didn't want to start looking for housing. I got the data the same way: use the NIH RePORTER system to find all...

forums.studentdoctor.net

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Fencer]

The MSTP FOA indicates that they will be funding forward only 25% of the MD/PhD census for the program.

"NIGMS typically provides full-time support for approximately 25% of the trainees in the training program during any given year."

We have made every effort possible to appoint every single MD/PhD trainee in my program to our NIH MSTP T32 or a NIH NRSA for at least one year during their MD/PhD training, so that they are part of their longitudinal database.

 

[Neuronix]

Thanks for putting this together.

Just to clarify, we're talking about individual NRSA predoctoral awards?

How did you determine eligibility? One of the issues with F30s for example is that not every institute participates. It's hard to assess whether an applicant has a project that could be eligible for an F30.

Also, some programs require their students to prepare an F30. Others do not. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I'm unclear on this.

Anecdotally, my MD/PhD student got their F30 funded. It's an honor as a mentor to support that, but I'm not sure how much of a factor it should be in evaluating programs or individual students.

 

[tr]

Anecdotally, my MD/PhD student got their F30 funded.

Yay!!

 

[near_airport]

Thanks for putting this together.

Just to clarify, we're talking about individual NRSA predoctoral awards?

How did you determine eligibility? One of the issues with F30s for example is that not every institute participates. It's hard to assess whether an applicant has a project that could be eligible for an F30.

Also, some programs require their students to prepare an F30. Others do not. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I'm unclear on this.

Anecdotally, my MD/PhD student got their F30 funded. It's an honor as a mentor to support that, but I'm not sure how much of a factor it should be in evaluating programs or individual students.

Firstly, congratulations to you and your student!

I used the NIGMS TWD dashboard for the number of NRSA stipends. The dataset I put together only looks at T32 funded MD-PhDs, which I thought all participated in the F30/F31 program. The total number of trainees in the thesis phase of the program was used as a proxy for eligibility, but I do acknowledge that this artificially deflates funding rates for programs like Michigan that have a large number of trainees in non-biomedical science fields.

By eye, it seems that programs that have a required F30 application seem to have higher funding rates than the mean, but I don't know if this true and may depend on the program's own expectations for their trainees. I personally looked for programs that had heavy formal support for training in grant writing during my application cycle, at least based on what previous mentors have told me about the importance of building a track-record of funding early, but the importance of this factor is heavily dependent upon the individual trainee.

I don't personally believe that getting a NRSA predoctoral grant is the end-all-be-all for a trainee or a program, especially given the availability of other funding sources such as the DOD NDSEG, AHA, Hertz, and others, but from what I've seen, it looks to be a decent feather in a student's cap.

 

[Neuronix]

Firstly, congratulations to you and your student!

I used the NIGMS TWD dashboard for the number of NRSA stipends. The dataset I put together only looks at T32 funded MD-PhDs, which I thought all participated in the F30/F31 program.

The problem is that not all NIH institutes participate in F30/F31. See: PA-21-049: Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA) Individual Fellowship for Students at Institutions with NIH-Funded Institutional Predoctoral Dual-Degree Training Programs (Parent F30) . A major example is that NINDS pulled out years ago. Therefore, you don't know how many students were eligible to apply for F30s or F31s.

So, for example, individual students studying neuroscience cannot apply for F30 unless they can fit another institute (or can apply under a diversity F31). This is risky. A friend of mine tried this, got a fundable score on their F30, and then was rejected at council for their grant not fitting well enough into that institute.

 

[near_airport]

The problem is that not all NIH institutes participate in F30/F31. See: PA-21-049: Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA) Individual Fellowship for Students at Institutions with NIH-Funded Institutional Predoctoral Dual-Degree Training Programs (Parent F30) . A major example is that NINDS pulled out years ago. Therefore, you don't know how many students were eligible to apply for F30s or F31s.

So, for example, individual students studying neuroscience cannot apply for F30 unless they can fit another institute (or can apply under a diversity F31). This is risky. A friend of mine tried this, got a fundable score on their F30, and then was rejected at counsil for their grant not fitting well enough into that institute.

I was wholly unaware that some NIH ICs had pulled funding for the F30. The data does capture F31s, but as you said, if a trainee's research doesn't fit into that ICs mission statement, they may not have been able to apply in the first place. Thank you for the information, and I wish that public data was more granular. I'll edit the main post to better reflect these caveats.

 

[ddhopeful]

How much does getting a F30 grant help with the competitiveness of the residency application?

 

[near_airport]

How much does getting a F30 grant help with the competitiveness of the residency application?

JCI Insight - Pearls of wisdom for aspiring physician-scientist residency applicants and program directors

insight.jci.org

"Opinions of PSTP directors regarding the importance of receiving previous research funding (e.g., F30, F31, or foundation funding) appeared to be divided in internal medicine, with 12.5% (n = 3) considering it very important and 17% (n = 4) considering it not at all important (Figure 2B). In contrast, 67% (n = 6) of pediatrics PSTP directors considered previous research funding to be very important or fairly important, and none considered it not at all important. None of the PSTP directors considered attempting to obtain research funding (applied, but not awarded) to be very important, while one-quarter of internal medicine PSTP directors and 11% of pediatrics PSTP directors rated it not at all important (Figure 2B)." (Gallagher et al. 2022)

There's a JCI article that touches on this topic. The TL;DR is that it depends on the program and the director; some PSTP directors find it to be very important, others less so.

 

[Maebea]

AAMC Table B-12 does not differentiate between NIH-eligible (i.e., US citizens & permanent residents) and non-NIH-eligible (non-Green Card holders). The distribution of the non-NIH-eligibles is uneven across programs, with some programs have 0%, and others having more than 15%. Therefore, the success ratio is understated for programs that have a significant number of non-citizens.