A previous report found an association of topic choice with race-based funding disparities among R01 applications submitted to the National Institutes of Health ("NIH") between 2011-2015. Applications submitted by African American or Black ("AAB") Principal Investigators ("PIs") skewed toward a small number of topics that were less likely to be funded (or "awarded"). It was suggested that lower award rates may be related to biases of peer reviewers. However, the report did not account for differential funding ecologies among NIH Institutes and Centers ("ICs"). In a re-analysis, we find that 10% of 148 topics account for 50% of applications submitted by AAB PIs. These applications on "AAB Preferred" topics were funded at lower rates, but peer review outcomes were similar. The lower rate of funding was primarily due to their assignment to ICs with lower award rates. After accounting for IC-specific award rates, topic choice was not associated with funding.

中文翻译：

---

美国国立卫生研究院和中心的奖励率和资金差距

先前的一份报告发现，在2011年至2015年之间向美国国立卫生研究院（NIH）提交的R01申请中，主题选择与基于种族的资金差异存在关联。由非裔美国人或黑人（“ AAB”）首席调查员（“ PIs”）提交的申请偏向少数几个不太可能获得资助（或“授予”）的主题。有人提出，较低的奖励率可能与同行评审的偏见有关。但是，该报告没有考虑NIH研究所和中心（IC）之间不同的筹资生态。在重新分析中，我们发现148个主题中的10％占AAB PI提交的申请的50％。这些有关“ AAB首选”主题的申请获得的资助较低，但是同行评审的结果相似。较低的资助率主要是因为它们被分配给具有较低奖励率的IC。在考虑了特定于IC的奖励率之后，主题选择与资金无关。