tooluniverse-nih-funding-landscape

name

tooluniverse-nih-funding-landscape

description

Analyze NIH grant portfolios and funding history using the OpenNIH FY1985-present corpus, then connect grants to investigators, institutions, publications, clinical trials, patents, targets, or drugs with ToolUniverse. Use for NIH grant discovery, topic or Institute/Center trends, PI and institution profiles, activity-code or mechanism analysis, funding growth and concentration, grant-writing landscape research, SBIR/STTR landscapes, research-policy analysis, expert discovery, funding-to-output translational impact studies, or public-facing NIH explainers for patients, advocates, local and national journalists, trainees, applicants, institutions, entrepreneurs, and taxpayers.

NIH Funding Landscape

Build source-traceable NIH funding analyses with explicit scopes, count units, data coverage, and interpretation limits. Use OpenNIH_* for funding facts and other ToolUniverse sources only for downstream evidence they actually cover.

Always read references/tool-reference.md before choosing tools or comparing totals. Read references/verified-cases.md when testing the skill, debugging an unexpected response, or adapting one of the verified case patterns. Read references/public-value-cases.md for a patient, family, advocate, journalist, trainee, applicant, taxpayer, policy, or other public-facing request.

Public Value Routing

Start from the reader's decision, not from the available endpoints:

Reader	Optimize the answer for	Never imply
Patient, family, advocate	A topic-specific research map, recent activity, inspectable projects, and next contacts	Clinical expertise, quality of care, treatment advice, or patient benefit from funding alone
Journalist, taxpayer, policy analyst	A reproducible headline number, its definition, its largest drivers, and its sensitivity to alternate queries	That the largest number is the truest, a partial year is final, or spending caused outcomes
Researcher, trainee, applicant	Funded precedents, active mechanisms, institutions, and project language	Application odds, reviewer preferences, mentorship quality, or K99-to-R00 conversion
Institution or translational team	Resolved peer portfolios and exact identifiers for output follow-up	Raw-name totals as one entity or grant-output chronology as causality
Local reporter or community	A location-qualified portfolio joined through resolved institutions	That an institution-name substring is a city/state geography query or that award location equals beneficiary location
Entrepreneur	Topic-specific R41/R42/R43/R44 awards, companies, and phase-labeled project activity	Commercial success, current company status, addressable market, or Phase I-to-II conversion from annual award rows

For public output, give: (1) a one-sentence answer with window/surface/unit, (2) the records or outliers that drive it, (3) the material definition sensitivity, (4) what the evidence does not prove, and (5) a public link or stable-identifier next step. If an answer cannot change a reader's next action, narrow the question before adding more tables.

Required Workflow

Phase 0 — Scope and source state

1. Define the entity or topic, fiscal-year window, mechanism scope, dollar basis, and requested unit: application/project-year rows, full project numbers, distinct core awards, or recorded dollars.
2. Call OpenNIH_source_status before a broad report, an absence claim, publication/detail linkage, or any current-year conclusion. Capture the main-corpus fiscal years, latest-year status, snapshot-lag note, and sidecar coverage relevant to the requested window.
3. If a call times out or returns 429/5xx, retry once. If it still fails, report the endpoint as unavailable; do not silently replace it with guessed data or a source with a different scope.

Phase 1 — Resolve before analyzing

Choose the matching path:

• Topic: start with OpenNIH_search_grants, then OpenNIH_topic_trend. Use OpenNIH_ic_topic_cross to measure the topic within one named IC or to inspect its RCDC/text classification. ic="ALL" returns one combined NIH scope, not a per-IC table. To rank ICs, fully paginate search_grants, choose all-mechanism or comparable=true RPG scope explicitly, group the returned ic field, and reconcile the pages before reporting.
• PI: search surname or LAST, FIRST first. If a user supplies First Last and gets zero results, retry Last, First and surname-only. Collect every returned pi_profile_id; disambiguate candidates using full displayed name, institution, project title, IC, and fiscal year before calling OpenNIH_get_pi_profile. The same historical name and institution can still appear under multiple source profile IDs; inspect overlap and provenance rather than summing profiles.
• Institution: call OpenNIH_rank_institutions and use its returned entity_id. Paginate the ranking if the requested institution is not on the first page. Never construct or guess an entity ID from a name, and never treat search_grants(institution=...) substring totals as one resolved entity without inspecting every matched org_name.
• System portfolio: use OpenNIH_funding_trend, OpenNIH_activity_code_distribution, or single-year OpenNIH_institution_concentration snapshots.
• Exact award: use OpenNIH_search_grants(project_num=...), then OpenNIH_fetch for a citation-shaped record and public URL.
• SBIR/STTR: query R41, R42, R43, and R44 separately with the same topic variants and window, then deduplicate non-null core project numbers. Treat each code's rows as funded project activity, not a phase-transition cohort.
• Geography: do not use institution= as a city/state filter. OpenNIH returns raw organization names but no location fields on grant rows; require a separately sourced institution-to-location crosswalk joined through resolved entities, or state that geographic attribution is unsupported.
• Award lineage: preserve every full project number for citation/fetch, but group annual, supplement, renewal, and transfer rows by non-null when the question asks for distinct awards. A core number alone is not fetchable.

Phase 2 — Validate the evidence surface

1. Inspect representative records before interpreting an aggregate. Confirm that titles, activity codes, ICs, organizations, and years match the intended concept.
2. For topics, run the user's exact term plus material synonyms or legacy terms separately. Do not add totals across queries without deduplicating identifiers.
3. When ic_topic_cross selects RCDC, inspect every matched_rcdc_categories value. Generic words such as disease, disorder, syndrome, or research can make the matched-category list noisy. Rerun a distinctive seed such as Alzheimer instead of Alzheimer's Disease, and compare forced text versus rcdc when the conclusion depends on classification.
4. Treat RCDC and title-text as different evidence surfaces. Never splice their totals into one trend or rank them as though they used one definition.
5. If forced RCDC returns zero in a covered modern window, inspect matched_rcdc_categories, alternate_surface_grants, and no_match_note. A phrase such as health equity may have no exact official RCDC category while title text matches many awards; this is a controlled-vocabulary gap, not $0 or absence.
6. For an acronym or short token, inspect false-positive substrings and names. In the verified Long-COVID case, PASC matched PASCALL and a surname; prefer a disease-specific phrase and deduplicate a multi-query union by stable award identifiers.
7. Before custom pagination, require meta.total <= 100050; limit is 50 and offset is capped at 100000. If the slice is larger, narrow it by fiscal year, exact IC/activity, or a more specific query, and aggregate reconciled partitions. For a retrievable slice, verify collected rows equal meta.total, the number of non-null amounts equals meta.reported_grant_count, and distinct non-null core IDs equal meta.distinct_awards. Sum dollars only when at least one amount is reported; when reported_grant_count=0, require meta.total_funding=null and report dollars as not reported, never $0.
8. Treat OpenNIH_search as citation discovery, not a record-level precision audit. Multi-component matches can be canonicalized to a parent project whose visible title/text omits the query terms. Validate the matching component with search_grants before using a citation-shaped hit as representative topical evidence.

Phase 3 — Synthesize and link

1. Separate direct OpenNIH observations, checked calculations, cross-source links, and interpretation.
2. For translational impact, carry stable identifiers into the relevant ToolUniverse workflow:
   • Search PubMed with the exact NIH project/core number in the Grant Number field first. Preserve returned PMIDs and grade an exact grant-number association as X1; then use PMC, OpenAlex, or iCite for article and citation context.
   • Search ClinicalTrials.gov for the exact grant number first. A zero exact match plus disease-topic matches is not an award-to-trial link. Use search results only to collect NCT IDs, then call the study-detail endpoint for sponsor, phase, enrollment, interventions, and status.
   • Disease, gene, target, and intervention terms → disease, target, drug, and trial tools.
   • Investigator and institution names → literature, trial, and patent searches with identity checks.
3. Do not imply causality from temporal order, co-occurrence, an award-output link, or a later trial.
4. Return the findings, interpretation, and compact provenance—not a chronological search log.

Endpoint-Specific Interpretation

• get_institution_profile is a multi-scope container: mechanism_mix is the institution's all-mechanism portfolio, while funding_trend and top_pis are RPG-research only. Its sections share the requested window, not one funding scope.
• rank_institutions may roll up campus name families; profiles, mechanism mix, growth, and concentration use one canonical entity_id. Totals can differ even when labels look identical.
• In rank_institutions, sort_by="funding_scale" means top-funded. The default composite is a weighted score; label it a composite ranking, not a funding ranking.
• Historical ranking guard: in the verified deployment, FY1985–1998 rank_institutions can return positive funding and fully reported rows while search_grants, funding_trend, institution profile/growth, and concentration return null dollars for the same years. Treat that ranking-dollar surface as quarantined unless it reconciles at runtime; counts may still be described separately. Do not use its funding or composite order in a cross-endpoint historical conclusion.
• In ic_topic_cross, total_grants is a count of distinct non-null core awards in the RPG-research slice, while total_funding is recorded nominal funding for that same slice. ic="ALL" combines all matched ICs and still returns top institutions, not an IC breakdown.
• In mechanism_mix, share is a 0–1 fraction; render 0.528174 as 52.82%.
• In funding_growth, yoy_growth_pct and cagr_pct are already percentages; render 3.9084 as 3.91%, not 390.84%. The response does not carry a partial field, so check the same years with funding_trend and exclude a partial endpoint from growth/CAGR interpretation.
• In institution_concentration, gini and top5_share are 0–1 fractions, while hhi uses the 0–10,000 scale. Always report total_institutions and use like-for-like single-year snapshots.
• When concentration has no recorded-dollar denominator, it returns null Gini/HHI/top-five share, an empty top five, and total_institutions=0. This means the metric is unavailable, not that concentration or funding is zero.

Analysis Rules

• Treat award_amount = null as not reported, never zero. State the reported-dollar coverage when it materially affects a comparison.
• If every amount in a slice is null, preserve aggregate dollars and funding shares as null. Counts and distinct awards can still be reported, but dollar rankings, shares, growth, CAGR, Gini, and HHI are unavailable.
• Treat dollars as nominal unless an external inflation series was explicitly applied. Label any inflation-adjusted calculation and its price index.
• Do not compare rank_institutions competitive RPG-research totals with funding_trend all-mechanism totals.
• Do not call project-year rows “grants.” Prefer distinct_awards for award counts and name the unit every time.
• Treat a year as partial whenever its row has partial=true. In particular, a latest-year shard or sidecar does not imply a complete fiscal year; inspect the returned row and source_status at analysis time.
• Treat topic_trend as title-keyword evidence, not semantic classification. Multiword queries use AND logic. Test synonyms separately and show query sensitivity when conclusions depend on terminology.
• Treat RCDC as an official categorization surface with time-dependent coverage, but treat OpenNIH's query-to-category match as a search result that must be inspected. Report match_strategy, matched categories, and window coverage.
• A forced RCDC result over a window ending before FY2008 can return zero awards solely because the service surface has no rows. Read no_match_note and alternate_surface_grants; use auto/text or a window reaching FY2008 before making an absence claim.
• Preserve ic_scope.kind, n, and matched_ic_names when filtering by IC. Historical labels may be modernized or many-to-one: a modern alias can select multiple raw labels, while a legacy abbreviation may resolve to zero. Do not reconstruct historical organizational ownership from display labels alone.
• If ic_scope.kind="fragment", treat the result as an inspected multi-IC subset, not the named IC. A broad phrase such as National Institute reported n=26 while returning 25 matched-name entries and only 17 unique modernized display names in the verified case. Preserve all three quantities, flag any mismatch, and prefer an exact abbreviation or ALL; do not infer a precise IC count from the fragment response.
• Use source_status before saying a grant, PI, publication link, or fiscal-year record is absent. Say “not found in this snapshot/query” when corpus lag or sidecar gaps remain possible.

Quantified Completeness

• Broad topic report: source status; exact query plus at least one meaningful query variant; one RCDC/text decision; at least five inspected records spanning early, large, and recent results; leading ICs from a fully reconciled grant-row aggregation, or an explicit statement that IC attribution was not requested.
• Institution comparison: resolved entity IDs; identical windows; at least RPG trend/growth and all-mechanism mix; an explicit scope table before comparison.
• PI profile: all candidate profile IDs from the disambiguation search; the selected identity evidence; requested-window meta.total_grants; returned grants and collaborators, including explicit “none returned” and the collaborators' window-independent scope; duplicate full-number audit before using profile counts or dollars; publications reported as unavailable from this endpoint rather than zero.
• Concentration analysis: at least three comparable single-year snapshots unless the user asks for two exact years; Gini, HHI, top-five share, institution count, and entity-resolution caveat.
• Exact award: exact search result, canonical fetch record, project URL, funding basis, and source-status caveat for any absence.
• SBIR/STTR landscape: all four R41/R42/R43/R44 codes; exact term plus at least one material technical synonym; project-year and distinct-core counts; inspected companies/titles; no phase-conversion or commercialization claim.
• Geographic analysis: resolved institutions plus an external location source, join method, unmatched-entity rate, and location-vs-beneficiary caveat. Without that layer, explicitly report the geographic question as unsupported.
• Award lineage: all relevant full project numbers, distinct non-null core IDs, organization-year changes, supplement/transfer inspection, and one fetchable full-number citation.
• Funding-to-output study: exact grant-number publication search; all retained PMIDs; article type and date; iCite fields labeled as bibliometric/model metrics; exact grant-number trial search; detail retrieval for every cited NCT record; candidate-only topical matches labeled X3; unavailable patent or output sources named explicitly.

If the data cannot meet a minimum, keep the section and state the actual coverage and reason.

Cross-Source Linking

Use exact identifiers where available. Grade claims as:

• F1 direct: an OpenNIH row or endpoint aggregate with its returned scope.
• F2 derived: a calculation whose pages, units, and reconciliation checks are reported.
• X1 exact link: a stable grant, PMID, trial, patent, ORCID, or other identifier joins sources.
• X2 resolved entity: a normalized PI or institution match with corroborating fields and time overlap.
• X3 candidate: name or topical similarity only; never present as attribution.

A publication linked to an award is an attributed output, not proof that the award caused the result. A later trial, patent, or drug program requires independent identity and subject-matter confirmation. An exact grant-number link is stronger than a name/topic match, but it still establishes attribution rather than causality. A topical trial hit is X3 until an exact identifier or independently verified award acknowledgment is found.

For a funding-to-impact study, construct a compact evidence table with:

• NIH award/project identifier and fiscal years;
• PI and resolved institution;
• activity code, IC, and recorded award amount;
• linked or independently matched outputs with identifiers;
• match method and confidence;
• time from funding to each output;
• coverage and attribution caveats.

Output

For broad analyses, return a narrative report with:

1. Scope and method — query variants, fiscal years, funding scope, units, and source status.
2. Key findings — the few decision-relevant trends with exact values.
3. Portfolio structure — ICs, mechanisms, institutions, and PIs as relevant.
4. Representative awards — enough records to validate the aggregate interpretation.
5. Downstream outputs — only when cross-source evidence was requested and checked.
6. Data gaps and limitations — one consolidated table covering null dollars, snapshot lag, partial years, keyword/RCDC behavior, sidecar coverage, tool failures, and unresolved identities.

For a narrow lookup, answer directly and include only the necessary provenance and caveat. Prefer tables for repeated comparisons and concise prose for one finding.

Quality Check

Before returning, verify that:

• every total has a fiscal-year window, funding scope, dollar basis, and unit;
• every comparison uses like-for-like scope and query logic;
• missing values were not converted to zero;
• percentage and share fields were rendered in the correct units;
• representative records support the topic interpretation;
• every RCDC conclusion includes an inspected matched-category list;
• every custom paginated calculation reconciles to server metadata;
• every custom paginated slice is within the 100,050-row retrieval ceiling or is partitioned into independently reconciled sub-slices;
• every all-null dollar slice remains null and is not converted into a zero sum, share, growth rate, or concentration statistic;
• every IC ranking comes from explicit grouped rows rather than treating ic_topic_cross(ic="ALL") as a ranking;
• every fragment IC scope reports n, matched-list length, and unique displayed names separately when they disagree;
• every “top-funded” institution table used sort_by="funding_scale" rather than the composite default;
• every growth window excludes or explicitly withholds interpretation of a partial endpoint;
• every geographic conclusion uses verified location data rather than organization-name substrings;
• every SBIR/STTR comparison covers all four phase codes and avoids phase-conversion or commercial-success inference;
• every award-lineage count distinguishes full project numbers, project-year rows, and core awards, and fetches a full project number rather than a core ID;
• every repeated full project number has a parent/component reconciliation before any unique-award dollar claim;
• every PI-profile total or count is withheld when repeated full project numbers make it row-level rather than award-level;
• every historical institution funding rank reconciles with the main/profile dollar surfaces, or is marked unavailable;
• absence claims account for snapshot and sidecar status;
• cross-source links expose their identifiers and match method;
• every cited trial was read from its detail endpoint rather than inferred from null search-summary fields;
• every iCite APT value is labeled as a model indicator rather than a probability of real-world success;
• conclusions distinguish funding priority, research activity, output, and causal impact.