DMG-IADR Abstract Research Patterns by Type, Focus, and Funding

Introduction:  Bayne and Marshall (JDR 1999;78:130, Abst-196) reported DMG research for 20 years was primarily applied (type) and overwhelmingly laboratory-based (focus).  Since 1997, NIDCR has emphasized basic research and clinical focus. 

Objective:  Analyze 2007 DMG-IADR abstracts by (1) type and focus (versus previous information) and (2) funding source, to compare present patterns to NIH priorities. 

Methods:  DMG-IADR abstracts from the 2007 IADR/AADR New Orleans meeting were manually inspected and categorized by (1a) TYPE  [applied (=product-testing) or basic (=structure vs property)] and (1b) FOCUS [Lab= materials laboratory tests, Tiss= cell-tissue-animal, or Clin= human clinical].  
 

Abs Year	DMG/IADR Abstracts, n/N  (%)	TYPE versus FOCUS
		Applied Research (%)				Basic Research (%)
		Lab	Tiss	Clin	=Total	Lab	Tiss	Clin	=Total
2007	676/3011   (22.5%)	69.2	2.8	10.7	=82.7	17.2	0.1	0.0	=17.3
1997	823/3747   (22.0%)	77.0	3.3	7.4	=87.7	10.3	1.8	0.1	=12.3
1987	328/2088   (15.7%)	76.2	1.5	12.5	=90.2	8.8	0.0	0.9	=  9.8
1978	160/1193   (13.4%)	75.6	1.3	8.1	=85.0	15.0	0.0	0.0	=15.0

2007 abstracts were categorized by (2) FUNDING source: [US-Fed= NIH+NSF; Other= other government or university; Corp= corporate contract; None= none declared].  Earlier information was not available.
 

		Abstract FUNDING, n (%)
Year	DMG Abstracts	US-Fed	Other	Corp	None
2007	n=676	87 (12.9%)	57 (8.4%)	86 (12.7%)	428 (63.3%)

Results:  Applied type (82.7%) continues to dominate basic research (17.3%), parallels previous trends, and shows no increase with year (r²=0.46 for applied vs year). Total laboratory (69.1+17.2=88.7%) exceeded total clinical (10.7%) focus by more than 8-fold, continuing earlier trends.  Two-thirds (63.3%) of all research funding was not identified with any major source.  US-Fed and Corp funding were similar and minor.

Conclusions:  Despite NIH emphases, DMG abstract patterns reflect (1) no major shift toward basic research type or meaningful trend toward clinical focus, and (2) very little association with US-Fed funding sources.