1 / 16

Translational Pilot Program

Translational Pilot Program. Mark W. Geraci, MD Associate Director, CCTSI Professor of Medicine. New Grant Objectives. Aim 5. Expand our comprehensive pilot grant program to catalyze and promote new, high quality, collaborative T1 - T4 investigation throughout the CCTSI.

kyoko
Télécharger la présentation

Translational Pilot Program

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Translational Pilot Program Mark W. Geraci, MD Associate Director, CCTSI Professor of Medicine

  2. New Grant Objectives • Aim 5. Expand our comprehensive pilot grant program to catalyze and promote new, high quality, collaborative T1 - T4 investigation throughout the CCTSI. • a: Organization and centralization of funding opportunities • b: Evaluate grant outcomes and funding opportunity priorities

  3. Approach • Innovative Approaches: • Addition of the CCTSI Micro-Grants Program • New CSU Collaboration Pilot Grants: • Enables and encourages a CSU-CU CO-Pilot for collaborations between CSU and CU faculty • New CSU only Pilot Awards – to capitalize on the excellence of pre-human clinical science and encourage new collaborations

  4. Governance

  5. Metrics: Overview

  6. Organization and Governance of Translational Pilot Grant Programs Mark Geraci, MD, UC Denver Natalie Ahn,PhD, HHMI, UC Boulder Larry Green, MD Don Nease, MD UC Denver Community Engagement CO-Pilot Maternal and Child Novel Methods Randy Ross, MD, UC Denver Kristi Anseth,PhD, HHMI, UC Boulder Bill Hay, MD, UC Denver

  7. Preliminary Data: Accomplishments Cycle

  8. Metrics: Overview First Round CSU Pilots • 24 Applications Reviewed • 4 Funded applications

  9. Metrics: Overview First Round CU / CSU Collaborative Pilots • 22 Applications Reviewed • 1 Funded application, second likely to be funded PI: Garrity, Deborah (CSU) , Matt Taylor, MD, PhD CU Characterization of zebrafish models of filamin C cardiomyopathy Filamin C(FLNC) found by whole exome sequencing (previous CCTSI Pilot) to be mutated and co-segreagate with the DCM phenotype Use zebrafish modeling for analysis of phenotype of different FLNC variants.

  10. Fig. 17 Return on Investment for Pilot Grant Awards Metrics: Cumulative ROI

  11. Metrics of Success: Success of Funded versus Unfunded Awardees • Significant Return on Investment • Cumulative index of ROI currently = 11.3:1 • Evaluation Core analysis indicates that awardees submitted significantly more grant applications than their unfunded peers (4.14 vs. 1.81 per investigator) • CCTSI awardees earned significantly more grant dollars than non-awardees ($137,327 vs. $49,485)

  12. Metrics of Success: Success of Funded versus Unfunded Exhibit: Total Dollars Received (2009-2011)

  13. National CTSA Consortium Involvement • T1 Translational Key Function Committee • Mark Geraci, Member • Monthly calls • Best practices for Pilot Programs • Best Practices for Methods Development • Unique features of Colorado Pilots • AEF funds Pilots and is flexible for carry-forward • Levels / Intents of funding • “Merging” with affiliated Pilot programs

  14. Response to EAC Critiques • Community Engagement actively enhancing process • Timing of grant applications slightly different this cycle • Time and energy to enhance application pool • Time to enhance review criteria metrics

  15. Response to EAC Critiques • Indeed, seeing increased numbers of “Senior” Investigators applying • Panel Reviewers expressing concern about the “Senior” applicants.

  16. Questions for EAC • Should we maintain a separate Novel Methods Pilot Program? Has several advantages, novelty • We have maintained • How do we “guard” against “Senior creep”? • Is the categorization enough? • Should we “exclude” Senior investigators?

More Related