Adrenal vein sampling (AVS) is a complicated procedure requiring clinical expertise, collaboration, and patient involvement to ensure it occurs successfully. Implementation science offers unique insights into the barriers and enablers of service delivery of AVS. The primary aim of this review was to identify implementation components as described within clinical studies, that contribute to a successful AVS procedure. The secondary aim was to inform practice considerations to support the scale-up of AVS. A scoping review of clinical papers that discussed factors contributing to effective AVS implementation was included. A phased approach was employed to extract implementation science data from clinical studies. Implementation strategies were named and defined, allowing for implementation learnings to be synthesized, in the absence of dedicated research examining implementation process and findings only. Ten implementation components reported as contributing to a successful AVS procedure were identified. These components were categorized according to actions required pre-AVS, during AVS, and post-AVS. Using an implementation science approach, the findings of this review and analysis provide practical considerations to facilitate AVS service delivery design. Extracting implementation science information from clinical research has provided a mechanism that accelerates the translation of evidence into practice where implementation research is not yet available.

Knowledge graphs have become a common approach for knowledge representation. Yet, the application of graph methodology is elusive due to the sheer number and complexity of knowledge sources. In addition, semantic incompatibilities hinder efforts to harmonize and integrate across these diverse sources. As part of The Biomedical Translator Consortium, we have developed a knowledge graph–based question-answering system designed to augment human reasoning and accelerate translational scientific discovery: the Translator system. We have applied the Translator system to answer biomedical questions in the context of a broad array of diseases and syndromes, including Fanconi anemia, primary ciliary dyskinesia, multiple sclerosis, and others. A variety of collaborative approaches have been used to research and develop the Translator system. One recent approach involved the establishment of a monthly “Question-of-the-Month (QotM) Challenge” series. Herein, we describe the structure of the QotM Challenge; the six challenges that have been conducted to date on drug-induced liver injury, cannabidiol toxicity, coronavirus infection, diabetes, psoriatic arthritis, and ATP1A3-related phenotypes; the scientific insights that have been gleaned during the challenges; and the technical issues that were identified over the course of the challenges and that can now be addressed to foster further development of the prototype Translator system. We close with a discussion on Large Language Models such as ChatGPT and highlight differences between those models and the Translator system.

The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) K99/R00 Pathway to Independence Award offers promising postdoctoral researchers and clinician-scientists an opportunity to receive research support at both the mentored and the independent levels with the goal of facilitating a timely transition to a tenure-track faculty position. This transitional program has been generally successful, with most K99/R00 awardees successfully securing R01-equivalent funding by the end of the R00 period. However, often highly promising proposals fail because of poor grantsmanship. This overview provides guidance from the perspective of long-standing members of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Mentored Transition to Independence study section for the purpose of helping mentors and trainees regarding how best to assemble competitive K99/R00 applications.

Stakeholder engagement is acknowledged as central to dissemination and implementation (D&I) of research that generates and answers new clinical and health service research questions. There is both benefit and risk in conducting stakeholder engagement. Done wrong, it can damage trust and adversely impact study results, outcomes, and reputations. Done correctly with sensitivity, inclusion, and respect, it can significantly facilitate improvements in research prioritization, communication, design, recruitment strategies, and ultimately provide results useful to improve population and individual health. There is a recognized science of stakeholder engagement, but a general lack of knowledge that matches its strategies and approaches to particular populations of interest based on history and characteristics. This article reviews stakeholder engagement, provides several examples of its application across the range of translational research, and recommends that Clinical Translational Science Awards, with their unique geographical, systems, and historical characteristics, actively participate in deepening our understanding of stakeholder engagement science and methods within implementation and dissemination research. These recommendations include (a) development of an inventory of successful stakeholder engagement strategies; (b) coordination and intentionally testing a variety of stakeholder engagement strategies; (c) tool kit development; and (d) identification of fundamental motivators and logic models for stakeholder engagement to help align stakeholders and researchers.

As funding for large translational research consortia increases across the National Institutes of Health (NIH), focused working groups provide an opportunity to leverage the power of unique networks to conduct high-impact science and offer a strategy for building collaborative infrastructure to sustain networks long-term. This sustainment leverages the existing NIH investments, amplifying the impact and creating conditions for future innovative translational research. However, few resources exist that detail practical strategies for establishing and sustaining working groups in consortia. Here, we describe how the Coordinating Center for the National Cancer Institute-funded Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) utilized principles derived from the Science of Team Science to develop replicable strategies for building and sustaining an effective working group-led consortium. These strategies include continually engaging community members in strategic planning, prioritizing diversity in leadership and membership, creating multi-level opportunities for leadership and participation, providing intensive community management and facilitation, and incentivizing projects that support the consortium sustainment. When assessing the impact of these interventions through qualitative exit interviews, four key themes emerged: through the C3I working group consortium, members co-created new dissemination products, gained new insights and innovations, enhanced local program implementation, and invested in cross-network collaboration to support sustained engagement in the initiative.

Advancing the new field of translational science and developing innovative solutions to overcome translational roadblocks are key priorities of the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program of the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS). However, interpreting this emerging concept of “translational science” (TS) as a field of inquiry distinct from “translational research” (TR) and developing real-world investigations in TS can be challenging. The goal of this paper is to share the obstacles the Einstein-Montefiore CTSA hub has faced in generating institutional interest and research in TS and to present potential strategies for addressing them. The aim is to stimulate dialog within the wider CTSA community and beyond about the need to systematically examine how TS should be efficiently and effectively pursued, that is, the science of translational science. The collective sharing of experiences and innovative approaches to overcoming TS challenges that arise at CTSA hubs is critical if the field is to grow and gain wider recognition and acceptance by the scientific and broader communities.

Community advisory boards (CABs) are a valuable strategy for engaging and partnering with communities in research. Eighty-nine percent of Clinical and Translational Science Awardees (CTSA) responding to a 2011 survey reported having a CAB. CTSAs’ experiences with CABs are valuable for informing future practice. This study was conducted to describe common CAB implementation practices among CTSAs; document perceived benefits, challenges, and contributions; and examine their progress toward desirable outcomes. A cross-CTSA collaborative team collected survey data from respondents representing academic and/or community members affiliated with CTSAs with CABs. Data representing 44 CTSAs with CABs were analyzed using descriptive statistics. A majority of respondents reported practices reflecting respect for CAB members’ expertise and input such as compensation (75%), advisory purview beyond their CTSA’s Community Engagement program (88%), and influence over CAB operations. Three-quarters provide members with orientation and training on roles and responsibilities and 89% reported evaluating their CAB. Almost all respondents indicated their CTSA incorporates the feedback of their CABs to some degree; over half do so a lot or completely. This study profiles practices that inform CTSAs implementing a CAB and provide an evaluative benchmark for those with existing CABs.

LGBTQIA2+ patients often experience discrimination and hostility in healthcare spaces. Negative perceptions of healthcare can contribute to poor health outcomes in LGBTQIA2+ patients. This population is rarely included in clinical trials through a lack of inclusion in study protocols, informed consent, and trials not addressing their needs and demographics. Many clinical institutions have created LGBTQIA2+-specific clinics; however, few have successfully developed a free clinic dedicated to this population. A Rainbow Clinic was formed at an established student-run free clinic, utilizing the existing infrastructure. Dissemination of this clinic’s creation can help others replicate similar initiatives.

Explorations of workflow development within primary care allow us to understand initial steps in the pace of knowledge and practice acclimatization within clinics. This study describes use of practice facilitation as an implementation strategy to communicate shared project goals and monitor and support refinement of practice behavior. This study engaged eight health care organizations, including 55 primary care practices, ≈380 clinicians, and ≈620 nursing and support staff in a guideline implementation project regarding United States Preventive Services Task Force use of aspirin recommendations for primary prevention of cardiovascular events.

REAP-2 is an interactive dose-response curve estimation tool for Robust and Efficient Assessment of drug Potency. It provides user-friendly dose-response curve estimation for in vitro studies and conducts statistical testing for model comparisons with a redesigned user interface. We also make a major update of the underlying estimation method with penalized beta regression, which demonstrates great reliability and accuracy in dose estimation and uncertainty quantification. In this note, we describe the method and implementation of REAP-2 with a highlight on potency estimation and drug comparison.

Despite the availability of vaccinations, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to cause Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection with a spectrum of disease in the acute setting. Transmission, infection, and severe disease remain common. There is a critical need to establish treatment regimens in the ambulatory setting that can reduce symptom burden and potentially prevent progression to severe disease and death. Many existing medicines previously approved for other uses may have benefit but remain unproven in informative clinical trials.

Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV)-6 is a decentralized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized, platform trial that has now enrolled more than 7500 participants and has reported on the effectiveness of ivermectin at two doses, fluticasone, and fluvoxamine for helping people with COVID-19. With additional repurposed therapies added to the platform, ACTIV-6 continues to enroll symptomatic outpatients aged ≥ 30 years with a confirmed positive PCR or antigen test for SARS-CoV-2. Potential participants are screened and enrolled online, through a call center, or facilitated by local study sites. Participants consent electronically and are randomized to placebo or to one of the open study drugs for which they are eligible at the time of enrollment. A shared, contemporary placebo approach is used. Participants receive study drug in the mail and remain on study for up to 180 days. While enrolled, electronic patient-reported outcome assessments are used to monitor symptoms, healthcare utilization, and mortality. The primary endpoint is time to recovery or a composite of hospitalization and mortality within 28 days. Symptoms, acute healthcare utilization, and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29 are collected for up to 180 days.

Using a decentralized trial approach allowed the ACTIV-6 platform to increase both reach and rate of enrollment. The decentralized approach did not simplify regulatory oversight, and we found unanticipated challenges in patient behavior and the study drug delivery process. Despite challenges, ACTIV-6 has enrolled thousands of participants from across the USA and continues to test the effectiveness of repurposed medicines for treating COVID-19. Our lessons learned contribute to the emerging understanding of how to optimize decentralized trials.