OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The CTSI Research Infrastructure Network (RIN) expands CTSI’s reach into the regional health systems to provide our services to a broad and diverse translational science community. We create and support research collaborations that span multiple geographies and patient populations and serve as a bridge between the affiliate sites and CTSI programs. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We conducted needs assessments at each site (n=6) via in-depth, semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders. Informants (n=40) included investigators, study personnel, and research administrators. Investigators were selected across a variety of departments and career stages. Interview transcripts and notes were analyzed using matrix-based qualitative methods to identify both the common and unique research infrastructure needs of each site. Individualized support plans were shared with each site and a comprehensive summary report was presented to CTSI leadership. RIN met with UCSF’s Comprehensive Cancer Center, which conducts clinical trials at 2 sites, to coordinator our effort and services. When possible, RIN addressed service requests in real time that arose during interviews. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We identified heterogeneous needs across multiple sites. However, among the community health systems with non-academic clinicians, there were common needs for research training, consultations in biostatistics/study design, and finding academic collaborators. The needs of sites with UCSF academic faculty differed from those of community sites and mainly included improved awareness and access to CTSI programs, ease of use of data extraction services, training programs, and assistance with regulatory approvals. Site needs are best addressed with individual plans created with CTSI Program leaders. A developing governance structure will include representation on a CTSI advisory committee and an annual conference to facilitate the sharing of best practices and foster collaboration across member sites. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Providing an individualized, site-specific approach to expanding CTSI services to regional health systems, will increase research collaborations across Northern California through building relationships, addressing unique infrastructure needs and sharing best practices throughout the network.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Having a strong leader in the form of an operations manager is crucial to lead and motivate teams. They're an additional set of problem-solving eyes to identify and address challenges. This poster demonstrates coordination techniques involved to work with teams of researchers, ensuring effective communication, deadlines met, and impact. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Stories, course corrections, publications, presentations and other metrics related to various projects and studies in the Lab will show such as the National Drug Early Warning System (NDEWS), Program to Alleviate National Disparities in Ethnic and Minority Immunizations in the Community (PANDEMIC, CDC), Polysubstance Use Study (PSU), and All of Us Consortium of CTSA/PACER Community Network. Additional data will be collected with project managers and students from each respective project to evaluate the effectiveness of an Operations Manager on the team across all studies in Our Lab. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: By sharing these results, showing the benefit to having an Operations Manager and the stories collected and shared for this poster, course corrections will set an example for future operations managers and their teams to continue to optimize efforts. Tis Could be a Special Interest Group (SIG)-related effort that would facilitate success to many labs. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Operations management focuses on effectively managing resources, ensuring that we meet deadlines, reduce delays, and maximize team productivity. By sharing our experiences, this can be a more standard practice among research labs to have smooth operations, and increase overall reputation of our team among those in the field.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The Oregon Clinical and Translational Research Institute (OCTRI) Clinical Research Navigator program provides a single point of entry for clinical and translational research services, support, advice and guidance. We provide data to illustrate the Navigator model at OHSU and examine continued opportunities to optimize research resources. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Requests and activities performed by the OCTRI Navigator program, staffed by 3 FTE (2 Assistant Navigators and 1 Assistant Director) were analyzed. Navigator receives requests through multiple methods: a digital form (REDCap®), email, phone calls. Requests for services and support include focused need for a core or a broad request for multiple services for start-up: informatics, the clinical and translational research center, regulatory knowledge and support, recruitment, qualitative methods, community research, biostatistics or broad consultations. Requests are tracked in SPARCRequest. Navigator also supports wayfinding to institutional resources outside of the CTSA, matchmaking for sponsors seeking investigators, and serves as a connector and facilitator across programs. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: OCTRI Clinical Research Navigator triaged an average of 964 research requests for 613 projects with 388 unique investigators annually between 2018-2022. Navigator also fields more than 80 calls each year that are unrelated to CTSA projects. Project requests are examined to illustrate trends in projects requesting multiple services and display how Navigator simplifies project intake and connects researchers to resources they may have not recognized they needed. Project attributes including funding type and funding status are included in this review. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: CTSA resources are essential to the infrastructure available to researchers. While absolute numbers of requests provide little insight into the impact each CTSA hub may have, the timing and clustering trends of projects with multiple program requests shows how a combination of technology and experienced staff can efficiently support researchers.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Seeking ways to support teams in the preparation for and the implementation of the new National Institutes of Health (NIH) Policy for Data Management and Sharing (DMSP), the integrated Translational Health Research Institute of Virginia (iTHRIV) partnered with the UVA Health Sciences Library to develop training and resources for researchers. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Health sciences librarians and iTHRIV (an NIH-NCATS supported Clinical Translational Research Institute) convened a Working Group, inviting representatives from central and unit-specific research support offices (e.g. the Comprehensive Cancer Center), research compliance, regulatory affairs, sponsored programs, institutional review boards, libraries, and data science to review and discuss the DMSP requirements. After an initial orientation to the policy, the group reviewed existing public resources and solicited feedback about steps to best support UVA researchers in compliance. Leveraging the broad expertise of the group, the team provides guidance to researchers on writing the DMS plan and choosing a data repository, and provides tools and templates to support implementation of the policy. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: A library-created website provided policy guidance, including links to NIH-hosted information, resources created by other institutions, and new UVA-specific templates and suggested proposal language. Librarians led a webinar on the new policy and UVA resources which included a speaker from UVA regulatory affairs to describe the new DMSP requirements, and a tour of the new guide. The guide has been viewed over 5000 times to date and librarians have provided consultations and training to individuals and departments. Current plans include developing a user satisfaction survey, reviewing DMSP feedback from submitted proposals, and incorporating lessons learned into the website and future training. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The collaboration between iTHRIV and the Health Sciences Library to support the NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy was a successful partnership that provided leadership at the institutional level to communicate with and engage researchers and utilized the library’s web presence, expertise, and service model to provide direct support.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: A Mayo Clinic in Florida committee completes 100+ Scientific Reviews annually through manual e-mail and Excel tracking, placing a manual burden on reviewers and coordinators. REDCap, an electronic data capture system, was leveraged to reduce the administrative burden.#_ftn1 #_ftnref2 METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Historically, emails were sent by a coordinator to physicians, requesting their initial review and following up with reminders. This process was tracked using Excel, presenting a need to make this process more efficient, so a workgroup was created. To ensure all perspectives were accounted for, the workgroup included the review coordinator, a physician reviewer, and study team members who submit development requests for studies. The process was mapped using the existing Excel spreadsheet, and email templates. Critical data elements were identified, ensuring the database would identify bottlenecks. Two REDCap instruments were then created: one to outline the coordinator workflow and a survey for physician reviewers to complete the scientific reviews. #_ftn2#_ftnref1 RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The workflow is live in REDCap and has effectively processed over 100 scientific reviews in <1 year. The system captures the review status and guides the coordinator through the workflow, capturing dates when tasks are completed. When review criteria are met, the database sends an email to the assigned reviewer. The email includes a link to a REDCap survey, containing all pertinent documents. The reviewer uploads their completed review form within the survey, if this is not completed within a given period, the database sends email reminders. Once the review is complete, a notification is sent to the review coordinator. The review workflow is accessible to the study team who requested scientific review, making them aware of their request status ad giving them access to the review the moment it is completed. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Leveraging REDCap has increased visibility, reduced overall manual processes, and simplified the reviewer burden by providing all the information needed in a single notification. REDCap is a cost-effective, impactful solution to simplifying administrative burden in managing committee reviews.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Identify causes for clinical research professional turnover Define data collection methods for exit interviews Provide institutions with resources to collect and analyze exit interviews Employ strategies to maximize the impact of exit interviews on retention METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The Clinical Research Professional Taskforce (CRPT) exit interview Subgroup has met monthly since January 2023. Action items were agreed to and minutes were kept and reviewed at subsequent virtual working meetings. All members were given opportunity to speak and contribute. After a landscape analysis, conducted via survey, five institutions agreed to provide examples of their exit interview questions. Members spoke at length about goals, methods, collection techniques, institutional involvement, lessons learned and practical applications that could become best practices. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The Subgroup aggregated all questions into categories and developed sample questions incorporating all data without using any word for word. In order to allow for quantitative assessment and standardized reporting the Subgroup formulated questions to be responded to utilizing a Likert scale with free text fields for select questions where further information is needed. The Subgroup developed best practices describing decision-making metrics, understanding reasons for turnover and reporting data back to leadership. Practical aspects such as method and time of survey collection, anonymity, and training staff are also included. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: We are hopeful that sample questions and best practices will be helpful and widely utilized. Understanding the causes and impacts of CRP turnover are critical to meeting the current needs of clinical research. Further work is being done to calculate the cost of turnover to make the business case.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Our vision is to build community amongst the Midwest CTSAs, harnessing our collective expertise to collaborate on translational science challenges and meet the needs of our region. We aim to create opportunities to network, share ideas, brainstorm solutions, address translational science topics, and achieve a range of deliverables. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Three individuals from the Chicago CTSAs (NUCATs, CCTS, and ITM) had been networking for a year and desired to increase opportunities to collaborate amongst other CTSAs. We developed an initial vision for a new group that would extend across the region, and we invited the TIN POCs from 16 Midwest CTSAs to join. In September, 2022, the group was launched with 20 members from 12 CTSAs. We hosted 12 monthly meetings via Zoom to discuss various topics (i.e., staffing, career training, e-consent, research design, and recruitment tools) via round tables or presentations. We developed a Google Sites website with resources, a discussion forum, and a group calendar. We solicited feedback via survey and follow-up discussion (i.e., most valuable about the group and what can be improved). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: During the past year, our membership grew to more than 30 participants, representing 16 CTSAs in nine Midwest states (IL, IA, IN, MI, MN, MO, KT, OH, WI). We engaged a total of 45 individuals at our meetings, with an average of 11 participants per meeting. Our discussions were lively and stimulated additional conversations, requests for guidance, sharing resources, etc., beyond the meetings. Feedback from the group was overwhelmingly positive. Members found many aspects of the group to be valuable (i.e., learning initiatives, processes, and best practices at other CTSAs) and provided practical suggestions for improvement (i.e., themes across a quarter or year). Members expressed interest in additional collaborations such as subcommittees, papers, and other initiatives. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: We created a regional CTSA community that is very enthusiastic to convene, share innovations developed at their CTSA hubs, and assist one other. Future directions include an in-person retreat in the spring. Our approach can serve as a potential roadmap for developing regional CTSA collaborative groups across the nation.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The objectives are 1) to describe the creation and implementation of a Clinical Research Feasibility Program at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine (UMMSOM), and 2) to share early findings demonstrating its effectiveness in improving research operations which may be helpful for other academic medical centers. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Many clinical trials are closed prematurely because of low accrual or not being able to meet the target enrollment. The Miami CTSI and UMMSOM Executive Dean for Research office collaborated to establish the Research Feasibility Committee (RFC) focusing on clinical trial selection with upfront feasibility and recruitment planning. Program implementation included: 1) selecting faculty with successful clinical trial track records as committee members; 2) developing processes, tools, and governance; 3) feasibility pilot testing; and 4) feasibility program roll out and refinement. The feasibility review process starts with the PI/Designee completing a REDCap study intake form, followed by an administrative review to ensure completeness of the form. The RFC chair assigns reviewers for the studies. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The RFC went live on September 1, 2022 reviewing industry sponsor clinical research studies. The RFC conducts a systematic feasibility assessment of the study protocol, operational requirements, enrollment barriers, institutional resources, and study budget (if available) for all applicable research studies prior to IRB submission and contract negotiation at the UMMSOM. To date, the RFC has received over 270 submissions. Based on feedback from users, the committee has made changes to improve the comprehension of questions and added questions to ensure capturing of critical information to assess study feasibility. Initial metrics suggest simply implementing the review process has decreased the number of clinical trial submissions: average number of studies per quarter was 41 pre-RFC vs 24 post RFC. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The development and implementation of the RFC involved many stakeholders from the research enterprise. Clear and frequent communication to the research community was a key factor in the program’s success. The next phase is assessing the impact of the RFC, such as preserving vital resources for trials more likely to be successful.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: An environmental scansoughtto understand research processes, areas for improvement, and opportunities for collaborative quality improvement (QI)across the Northwest Participant and Clinical Interactions Network (NW PCI). METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: NW PCI site champions were invited for semi-structured single and group Zoom-based interviews. Interviewers asked participants about local research processes, strengths and weaknesses, existing infrastructure to support QI, and interest in collaborative QI across the Network. Audio transcripts were coded using Dedoose and analyzed with deductive and inductive coding. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Between February and April 2023, 10 interviews collected data from 7 research decision makers and 7 staff members across 7 sites. Most participants (n=13, 92%) agreed the diagram shown during the interview was representative of the local process. Organizations consistently identified strengths and weaknesses within the domains of study start-up, recruitment, budgets, and compliance. QI infrastructure was inconsistent (n=5, 36%) and all (n=14, 100%) saw potential for success in multisite QI initiatives to enhance efficiency. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: NW PCI sites use similar processes, share common strengths and weaknesses, and universally reported interest in collaborating on QI. Study startup was reported as both a strength and weakness within the same organization, requiring unpacking of key elements before pursuing QI initiatives.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: A new mandate for Clinical & Translational Science Award (CTSA) Programs is for pilot grant funding to support clinical and translational science (CTS) projects that study challenges in the translational research pipeline. This pivot requires new structures and supports to help investigators design and implement high-quality CTS projects. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The Michigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research (MICHR) at the University of Michigan (U-M) has launched two rounds of pilot funding since March 2023. Faculty and staff across U-M’s three campuses, community members, and those at collaborating institutions and hospitals were eligible to apply. New pre-award supports included a CTS project framework; a recorded webinar that educated about CTS and the funding opportunity; office hours to provide tailored project feedback; a letter of intent to screen for alignment with CTS; and reviewer training for academic and community reviewers. Funded projects operate like 'mini cooperative agreements”, with MICHR experts partnering with awardees to refine evaluation plans, prepare work products, advise on dissemination, and navigate emergent challenges. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The first round of funding was launched in the absence of pre-award supports; ten applications we received from faculty proposing translational research rather than CTS. We quickly re-released the FOA, expanding eligibility to staff. We received nine applications, ultimately funding four staff and one faculty studying operational challenges in translation and helping them create robust evaluation plans. We piloted the pre-award supports in our second round, with 40 individuals viewing our webinar and 11 attending office hours. Those who watched the webinar before attending office hours better understood how to embed CTS questions within their programs of research. We recently received 19 letters of intent, addressing both operational and scientific challenges, with 16 eligible to submit applications. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Education and personalized feedback seem to elicit a higher yield of CTS projects. Staff are already adept at solving operational challenges, so the pre-award supports were most critical for faculty accustomed to writing traditional translational research proposals. Staff have most benefited from guidance in evaluation and dissemination.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The CTSA consortium’s Informatics Enterprise Committee has developed a maturity assessment model for Clinical Trial Management Ecosystems (CTME). This poster will show the improvements achieved using this model at the University of Iowa as well as guidance on how to apply it at other CTSA hubs. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The CTME maturity model consists of 11 categories including, study management; regulatory; financial; and reporting. Each category has 3 subcategories: standardization; complexity; and monitoring, while each subcategory is comprised of 1 to 5 maturity statements: initial; developing; aspiring; capable; and efficient. The maturity assessment team at Iowa—comprised of key personnel from clinical research and compliance, accounting, and administration—have used the CTME maturity model to assess Iowa’s research performance across the 11 categories. The initial maturity ratings for each category revealed any gaps in research operations, which led to developing strategies to address the gaps. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The assessment team initiated a CTME maturity planning project—holding regular meetings to review Iowa’s CTME research maturity and plan changes to improve our CTME maturity ratings. This analysis is done at the statement level to minimize the scope of actions needed and keep resource loads for improvements low. Proposed improvements are assigned to a team member who serves as an “accountability leader.” Such leaders develop action plans aimed at increasing maturity at least one level. The leaders are responsible for acquiring the resources to carry out the plan. Each action plan identifies qualifiers reviewed by the team to confirm that the maturity level has been met. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The CTME maturity model has been shown to be effective in identifying gaps in organizational operations at the University of Iowa, where it has led to incremental steps to improve clinical research operations. The utilization of the model at other CTSA hubs will be discussed at this session.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Our primary objective is to determine the demographic and linguistic characteristics of student research assistants (SRAs) in a large student-run free clinic associated with a mid-western university. Our secondary objective was to determine if the SRAs perceived any impact of those characteristics on their duties and ability to conduct research. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We plan to conduct a 15-question electronic survey of Student Research Assistants at the student run free clinic. There are a variety of projects that require varying levels of commitment from researchers, which will be aggregated. This survey has been modified from a previously validated survey that focused on the demographic and linguistic characteristics of pediatric research coordinators. This survey will be emailed out to student research assistants and will be done over a period of 3 months. The study population will be predominantly undergraduate students who are all interested in a career in healthcare, ages expected to range from 18-25. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We anticipate that the majority of student research assistants will be older students and will be students who identify as non-white/caucasian, as the majority of students volunteering at this free clinic do not identify as white. Additionally, we anticipate that students will feel that their racial/ethnic identity will positively impact their recruitment efforts. We also anticipate that the ability of a student research assistant to speak another language is expected to positively affect their perceived recruitment efforts. We also anticipate that gender will influence the student researchers’ perceptions of their recruitment efforts. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: An individual’s background can directly impact how they perceive their contributions towards research. Considering the paucity in research for underinsured and uninsured and the rise in undergraduate student research assistants, optimizing research efforts and SRA confidence is essential to increase the accuracy and efficiency of research.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: CTSA Hubs represent complex centers where teams work to meet multiple goals of the CTSA grant. An existing challenge is to work collaboratively across teams. To address this challenge, a Translational Operations Group (TOG) was established. Results show enhanced intra-hub collaboration and communication while reducing inefficiencies. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The TOG is composed of all CTSA hub module program managers who are charged with operationalizing vision into reality. The TOG was formed in 2021 as a mechanism to integrate new team members, provide connection, and improve cross-core awareness and collaboration. Leveraging team science principles, a team charter was developed outlining specific TOG aims and objectives. Collectively, shared goals were identified with establishment of group norms, effective communication pathways, shared resources and knowledge and meeting cadence. Leadership of the group rotates among the TOG members annually further engaging all TOG members. Pre and Post (one year) surveys were developed and provided to TOG members to gauge TOG effectiveness and perceptions of TOG members. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Survey results demonstrate the effectiveness of the TOG concept in promoting core/module awareness and goals, intra-core/module interconnectedness, and forming connections and integration into the CTSA hub ecosystem. Psycho-social questions demonstrated an increase in organizational self-esteem within the pre to post survey period in relation to the specific TOG member’s core/module and the CTSA hub as a whole. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Formation of a TOG has been successful within a virtual environment where connection is challenging. Integration of members to the operational activities is critical to foster a positive work environment, reduce silo effects, and provide a space for sharing resources and knowledge. Annual reflection of priorities contribute to the ongoing success.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: NCATS requires that CTSA-funded pilot projects focus on translational science (TS) and evaluate the translational process. However, a consistent understanding of TS remains elusive. This gap is being addressed by a consortium of 12 CTSA hubs aimed at identifying distinctive features of TS and translational research (TR) proposals. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: CTSA External Review Exchange Consortium (CEREC) is a reciprocal review collaboration among CTSA hubs. Reviewers were CEREC members from hubs that submitted CTSA applications (PAR-21-293); read the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Clinical and Translations Science Pilot Module; and discussed TS with their hubs “a fair amount” or “quite a bit” and then they independently categorized proposals. Proposals were labeled TS or TR if reviewers reached a consensus on category assignment; without consensus, proposals were labeled unclassified. In addition to category assignment, reviewers commented about their classifications. R was used to evaluate the comments and create word clouds with phrases/themes that distinguished between the categories of proposals. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Twelve CEREC participating hubs submitted 26 proposals, which were funded prior to the new NCATS TS requirements. Eight reviewers from distinct CEREC hubs evaluated and classified each proposal as TS or TR. Consensus (at least 87% agreement) was reached for 12 proposals, 6 TS and 6 TR. Reviewers provided comments describing the rationale for their classifications for 70% of the proposals. Qualitative analysis of the reviewers’ comments and rationale by classification (TS, TR, or unclassified) revealed common themes within and differences between groups and shed light on what defines TS and TR. The most frequent themes that distinguished TS from TR were generalizability across multiple diseases and a focus on increasing research efficiency. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: NIH is focused on research that meets the new definition of TS. Investigators seeking to address this funding priority should explicitly state the relevance of their research to multiple diseases and to the acceleration of future research. Programs seeking to attract TS projects should instruct applicants to include this information.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: * To analyze and compare disease support (funding, research productivity, drug development) and burden between systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), which particularly affects Black women, and similar conditions that affect other groups of Americans. * To address the discrepancy of prevalence estimates of SLE in America. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: This cross-sectional study examined publicly available data on disease funding metrics and research productivity indicators. We utilized the NIH Report database to calculate the total NIH funding and career development awards for SLE from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2023 (estimated). We reviewed Form 990-T tax returns of SLE organizations to calculate private funding. We examined US-based interventional trials related to SLE on ClinicalTrials.gov between 2008 and 2024, using the terms SLE and lupus. We assessed FDA drug approvals for SLE from 2008 to 2024. We reviewed publicly available SLE disease characteristics such as prevalence, incidence, demographics, costs, and mortality rates. We repeated these methods for conditions like SLE but with different patient demographics. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We will formulate SLE support based on its avaialble federal and private funding, clinical trials, and drug approvals. We will determine the ratio of SLE support to disease burden and compare it to other conditions that affect different demographics in the US. There is currently a discrepancy in the range of prevalence of SLE in the US (178,362 to 1.5 million), so we will work with specialists to provide a better understanding of the actual prevalence. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: SLE is a chronic disorder that is associated with hospitalizations, organ failure, and premature mortality. It has established disparities in incidence, treatment, and outcomes along gender, racial, and socioeconomic lines. Our study highlights the need for policy changes within research funding to address disparities and improve outcomes.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Health care accounts for an estimated 10% of U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Concerted efforts to decrease waste are needed including critical appraisal of single use items. The purpose of this study was to conduct life cycle analyses (LCA) of a pediatric single use laryngoscope to inform environmental impact and identify targets to reduce waste. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: LCA was used to quantify the environmental impact of a single use pediatric laryngoscope. LCA is an industry standard measure of energy consumption, water consumption, and GHG emissions encompassing a “cradle-to-grave” assessment. The GREET model (Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions and Energy use in Technologies) and Open LCA model were used as sources for product/raw material data. Separate analysis was completed for the battery powering the light emitting diode (LED) lights. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The LCA revealed 598.2 g of CO2 equivalents for the 121g single use pediatric laryngoscope. There were an estimated 26,849 cases that used single use laryngoscope last year at our free-standing children’s hospital resulting in 16.1 metric tons of CO2 equivalents. This is equivalent to 41,273 miles driven by an average gasoline powered vehicle. The 1.5 V battery was the highest contributor to the laryngoscope’s GHG emissions. While the battery has an estimated 2,800 hours of life, single use laryngoscopes are reported in the literature as being used for only an average of 30 seconds to 2 minutes. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Single use laryngoscopes are high contributors to GHGs. Specifically, the batteries contained in the laryngoscopes are wasteful and challenging to remove and recycle. Future efforts to decrease waste in the OR should target use of similar items that have reusable battery components to improve environmental sustainability.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Investigators have an ethical obligation to return study results back to participants in a timely and layperson-friendly manner, but most do not. This lack of communication can erode trust in the research enterprise. One solution to this issue is Plain Language Summaries (PLS). METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We investigated and collected best practices for PLS and results dissemination as part of formative research for a pilot PLS project. This pilot was used to inform the development of our own PLS resources, which we will share broadly with other CTSAs. We employed a two-part system for analysis. First, we examined extant PLS resources from five major, publicly accessible sources spanning academia, government, publishing, and nonprofits for themes and best practices. Then, we examined actual PLS from each source and collected more specific feedback. We examined PLS structure, length, inclusion of graphics, multiple language availability, readability, and potential for improvement. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Guidance sources recommended that PLS have logical and organized structures, and included essential trial information (e.g., study drug, adverse events). Suggestions for length varied widely, from 250 words to 15 pages. Guidance also recommended the use of media, including infographics, audio, and video. Only pharma guidance recommended multilingual PLS. Actual PLS included many common trial elements, including study purpose, treatment description, results, and adverse events. PLS in our analyses were 10-12 pages, and contained many infographics, including flow charts of study phases, visual explanations of treatment and participant demographics, and adverse event tables. None were multilingual, and most were readable at the 7th grade level, although one used undergraduate-level language. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: General guidance was similar across sources. In our analyses of PLS, we found novel recommendations, such as including auditory pronunciation guides, and personalized thank you letters to participants. In future research, we recommend focusing on novel dissemination methods such as short interactive videos and patient-actor testimonials.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: We explain our multi-platform, multi-audience approach to stakeholder engagement/communication, discuss KPIs for our Instagram accounts, and highlight five top performing posts. Finally, we provide tips to Hubs who would like to tailor and optimize their social media approach. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We employed Uses & Gratifications theory and formative research with stakeholders to inform our social media strategy. We run two Instagram accounts (main CTSI & Community Engagement [CE]), one Facebook page (CE), and one Twitter/X page (main CTSI). To understand impact, we collected social media analytics on both Instagram accounts (main CTSI and Community Engagement-specific accounts) to ascertain four social media-related Key Performance Indicators since the inception of the two accounts: reach, impressions, growth rate, and engagement. Additionally, we examined the five top-performing posts on each account that gave us insights into trending topics and ideas for future content. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: From January 2023 to October 2023, the reach for the main account was 3,578 and 38,235 for CE. The number of profile visits for the main account was 474 and 2,703 for CE. Engagement data on Instagram is only available for the last 90 days. For the main account, the number of post likes, comments and shares was 622 and 2,700 for CE. The views and reach for the five top-performing posts on the main and CE accounts ranged in the thousands. The content of the top-performing posts for the main CTSI account varied between highlighting our KL2 scholars' accomplishments, recap of campus-wide research events, and advertisements for upcoming educational webinars. CE’s top posts varied between highlighting their work in a South LA housing community, recaps of large community health events, and interviews with local key leaders. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: CTSA Hubs have an ethical obligation to keep their local academic and community audiences apprised of their activities. Creating a formative research and theoretically-informed social media plan that varies by platform, and regularly evaluating performance insights allows us to track the type of content that appeals to our multiple audiences.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: This work aims to explore how citizen science serves as a transformative frame work to bridge scientific knowledge, focusing on its potential to enhance transdisciplinary learning in artificial intelligence (AI) biomedical and clinical sciences by facilitating near-peer mentoring. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Our group of eight friends comprise a multicultural and multidisciplinary cohort including students from the USA, Philippines, Indonesia, and Guatemala pursuing PhD degrees in electrical and computer engineering, epidemiology, physics, and MD, PharmD, and DMD degrees. We engage in shared online courses, collaborative projects, and abstract submissions. Employing our collective knowledge, we design interactive learning experiences, support each other’s initiatives, and collaboratively develop lectures and presentations. We in tend to expand collaborations in biomedical AI education while fostering principles of experiential and collaborativelearning, constructivism, and authentic inquiry. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Our recent successes include submittedconference abstracts on data science and AI education in pharmacy and the facilitation of a guest lecture in health informatics. Additionally, we are currently collaborating on seven biomedical machine learning projects in radio frequency engineering, aiming for conference submissions. Moving forward, our goal is to expand our group, support the formation of similar communities, and promote data science and AI literacy in biomedical and clinical contexts. We aspire to extend this knowledge to families, classmates, and eventually patients, facilitating a broader understanding of the role of AI in healthcare. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: We believe diverse expertise and pedagogical theories can help demonstrate the potential of citizen science to democratize scientific experience. By nurturing collaborative networks our efforts aim to bridge gaps between disciplines and enhance the broader public’s understanding of AI in healthcare.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Hypertension is a major risk factor for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity. Our goal was to determine if hypertension worsens lung pathology induced by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in hamsters. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Male hamsters (7-8 weeks old) were infused with angiotensin II (AII; 200 ng/kg/min via osmotic minipump) for 4 weeks to induce hypertension. During the last week of the infusion, the hamsters were inoculated intranasally with vehicle (V) or SARS-CoV-2 (S; 1 x 105 plaque forming units/ml). Half of the hamsters were sacrificed 1 day post-inoculation (dpi-1) and the other half on dpi-6. Two scoring systems were applied to lung tissue sections stained with hematoxylin and eosin to determine the degree and severity of lung pathology: the first system assessed all pertinent alterations in the lungs, while the second system only assessed the pathology related to the pulmonary vasculature. Lung histopathology scores were calculated as the sum of the airway and lung alveolar scores in arbitrary units (AU). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Studies revealed that the SARS-CoV-2-infected hamsters exhibited a 76-fold higher total airway score compared to vehicle controls [(AU): V, 0.25 ± 0.1; S, 19.00 ±1.35; p<0.05; n=4]. Total lung alveolar scores (27-fold) [(AU): V, 0.30 ± 0.11; S, 8.0 ± 4.1; p<0.05; n=4] and total vascular scores (17-fold) [(AU): V, 0.35 ± 0.2; S, 6.0 ±1.4; p<0.05; n=4] were also markedly higher compared to controls on dpi-1. AII increased blood pressure, which was sustained through the 4-week infusion period. Under these conditions, body weight slightly dropped by 4.5%. Ongoing studies are assessing the effect of hypertension on the % of airway, alveoli and vessels affected, airway and alveolar severity, and bronchiolar epithelial and type II pneumocyte hyperplasia. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Establishing the hypertensive hamster as a small animal model of COVID-19 will facilitate investigations into why preexisting hypertension is a risk factor for disease severity. These studies could lead to the development of novel therapeuticsfor treating COVID-19 patients with hypertension.