Objectives/Goals: To assess how rigor and reproducibility activities across the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) consortium are aligned with NCATS Translational Science Principles (TSPs) and the NIH’s new plan to promote gold standard science. Methods/Study Population: We conducted a retrospective, descriptive review of all CTSA hub Research Performance Progress Reports (RPPRs) submitted for the most recent reporting year, focusing on the Accomplishments section. Reports were systematically searched using predefined rigor and reproducibility-related keywords. Relevant content was abstracted using a structured framework to categorize activities across domains, including education and training, institutional support, and data management and sharing. Results were summarized quantitatively by award mechanism. Results/Anticipated Results: Sixty-two of 66 CTSA institutions reported activities related to scientific rigor and reproducibility in the RPPR Accomplishments section. Among these hubs, rigor and reproducibility activities were most frequently reported under K awards (48 hubs), followed by UL2 or UM1 awards (43 hubs) and T awards (38 hubs). These findings indicate broad engagement across the CTSA consortium, with variation in how rigor and reproducibility activities are reported across award mechanisms. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Most CTSA hubs document multiple rigor and reproducibility activities as their accomplishments, reflecting alignment with NCATS TSPs. Characterizing these efforts across award mechanisms can inform strategies to strengthen translational science research that meets the NIH’s gold standard science.
Leyva et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: