Objectives/Goals: The University of Utah (U of U) CTSI has partnered with the Salt Lake Center for Science Education (SLCSE), a Title I school serving grades 7–12. Goals of this partnership are to 1) bridge the gap between K12 classroom learning and real-world applications and 2) better prepare students from underrepresented populations to enter the STEM workforce. Methods/Study Population: To cultivate science self-efficacy in grade 7–12 students, experiences included interviewing a scientist for 7th graders, model organism lab visits for 11th graders, and summer research internships for rising seniors. Additional engagements on the SLCSE campus included U of U guest speakers, U of U faculty and student participation in afterschool STEM clubs, U of U graduate students’ mentorship of high school science fair projects, and U of U faculty support in establishing a zebrafish lab for biology students. All students were surveyed at the start and end of the academic year using DEVISE evaluation tools developed by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Students participating in the summer internship program also completed the mentoring competency assessment before and after their ten-week internship experience. Results/Anticipated Results: During the first year of a seven-year longitudinal study, 380 SLCSE students engaged in at least one science experience through the Utah CTSI-SLCSE partnership named BEES (Boosting Engagement through Experiences in Science). Pearson product-moment correlations were used in preliminary studies to examine relationships between experience type and student motivation and interest in STEM. Field trips to U of U STEM labs and of U graduate students’ mentorship of high school science fair projects were significantly correlated with student motivation and interest, while the interview-a-scientist experience was significantly correlated with motivation only. The Utah CTSI-SLCSE BEES Program’s impact on student STEM success continues to be assessed using surveys and student reflections. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Access to science for underserved K-12 students is a critical issue in addressing educational equity and improving pathways into STEM fields. Many students attending SLCSE are low-income minority students with limited access to role models in STEM. The BEES partnership provides impactful opportunities for students to gain access to STEM.

Objectives/Goals: Citizen Science (CS) recognizes the vital role that community members play in research, centering their unique lived experiences and perspectives across the research cycle. We aim to enhance community-engaged research (CEnR) by adapting a CS Program at the University of Illinois Chicago (UIC) Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS). Methods/Study Population: The CS Program, launched in response to COVID-19, was designed/piloted for Chicago community members interested in research careers, developing evidence-based practice skills, and/or partnering with academic, community, and/or public health organizations. To inform program adaptation, we are conducting a landscape assessment, including 1) inventory/annotation of existing curricular materials, 2) review of peer-reviewed literature, 3) website extraction of existing CS programs’ key components, and 4) interviewing key informants. An Advisory Board of prior CS instructors/alumni will guide curriculum adaptation, coordination, and fidelity. We will also identify strategic internal/external UIC organizational partnerships to collaborate on establishing, developing, and conducting the program. Results/Anticipated Results: Literature describes common CS program typology as a continuum, from research done “with the people” to research conducted “by the people” (King et al, 2016). Our program will equip CS to engage across these conceptual continuums. We plan to launch the UIC CCTS CS Program by Fall 2025 and have 10 online modules with a disability justice lens. Topics will range from Critical Thinking and the Research Process to Structural Violence and Evaluation Frameworks. Grounded in liberatory pedagogy, sessions will be taught by UIC faculty, staff, and community partners, each containing a lecture, interactive activities, and assessments. Participants will earn a certificate applicable to related jobs (e.g., academic/community research), supplement community health worker training, precursor to health degrees, and more. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Through the CS Program, we aim to center community expertise and lived experience within research, foster bi-directional collaborations and relationships, and build community capacity. We are evaluating this project adaptation and implementation to create a blueprint for institutions to enhance their community-engaged research.

New educational curricula are emerging to train physicians for healthcare in the 21st century. The University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School T.H. Chan School of Medicine (UMass Chan) implemented an MD curriculum redesign in the fall of 2022 that included seven educational pathways, including Entrepreneurship, Biomedical Innovation, and Design. This new pathway curriculum introduces students to the principles of innovation, entrepreneurship, basic engineering principles, and technology commercialization. It is modeled after the I-Corps curriculum with added material regarding engineering principles. I-Corps was initially developed by the National Science Foundation (NSF) to help scientists understand the commercial potential of their inventions. Major elements include the Business Model Canvas and Customer Discovery [19-22]. First-year (Class of 2027) and second-year (Class of 2026) pathway students were invited to participate in online surveys evaluating course material and their knowledge of course content. Initial results show that the program was well received and student self-assessment demonstrated significant improvement. Objective student knowledge also significantly improved. Novel curricula have the potential to transform medical education and prepare future physicians to practice healthcare in the 21st Century.

Expanded access (EA) is a United States regulatory approach for the use of investigational drugs/devices that do not yet have conventional approval, in clinical care contexts. We conducted a retrospective study to analyze the neighborhood characteristics of patients who have received EA treatments at our academic medical center between 2018 and 2023. EA patient neighborhoods showed lower median family income, lower proportion of bachelor’s degree graduates, and a higher proportion of people identifying as non-Hispanic White ethnicity compared to the surrounding (Washtenaw) county. These differences may underly differential interest in EA treatments or may point to disparities in access to evidence-based care.

Objectives/Goals: This project aims to inform and develop a clinician-centered educational tool evidence-based and stakeholder-informed that fosters healthcare professionals’ (HCPs) adaptive expertise (AE) in cannabinoid-based therapies (CBT) for chronic pain management (CPM), addressing existing knowledge gaps, improving patient care and clinical decision-making. Methods/Study Population: To achieve this, the project will use a mixed-methods approach divided into three phases to evaluate existing educational resources, identify gaps, and inform the design of a curriculum to transform clinician education in CBT for CPM. It includes stakeholder mapping to engage and consult key experts for real-world insights and an environmental scan to assess and compare current educational resources qualitatively. A rigorous curriculum will be informed to be designed through an adaptive expertise and reflective practice framework, emphasizing case and problem-based learning, clinical simulations, and other pedagogical techniques. The educational tool will be pilot-tested with clinicians, measuring its impact on knowledge and decision-making flexibility through pre- and post-assessments, ensuring it fosters AE on CBT. Results/Anticipated Results: The project is expected to identify key gaps in existing educational resources, particularly AE in HCPs specializing in CPM. Through pilot testing, we anticipate improved knowledge of CBT among clinicians and enhanced ability to apply this knowledge flexibly in clinical practice. We also expect to establish core curriculum components that better support routine and adaptive expertise in chronic pain management. The pilot evaluations will guide further curriculum refinement and inform broader educational implementation. Discussion/Significance of Impact: This project addresses critical gaps in CbT education by informing the development of a curriculum that enhances clinicians’ ability to manage chronic pain with cannabinoid-based therapies. The resulting educational tool could significantly impact clinical practice, empowering patients, and HCPs to make informed decisions and improve patient outcomes.

Objectives/Goals: By synergizing our efforts, we believe this to be a fruitful collaboration for UCLA Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) and California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM). With multiple levels to stem cell training, focusing on specific educational goals is integral to our pilot event. This was held on July 26th and offered an exciting and valuable day for trainees. Methods/Study Population: Leadership was comprised of leaders at the UCLA Health Alpha Clinic, Broad Stem Cell Research Center (BSCRC), Human Gene and Cell Therapy Facility (HGCTF), UCLA Campus, Clinical and Translational Research Center (CTRC), and the Santa Barbara COMPASS program. Trainees from UCLA, CSUN, and UCSB were represented. The agenda included a didactic overview of the entire translational and clinical research process from discovery in the laboratory to bedside nursing in the patient care areas. Onsite tours were conducted at the HGCTF and the CTRC with a meet and greet with the nurses. The curriculum covered the clinical research process, regulatory requirements, ethics, current clinical trials, manufacturing, quality control, and compliance. A career opportunities discussion and network sessions closed out the day. Results/Anticipated Results: Of the 13 trainees who attended the session, 10 replied to the evaluation survey. All the responding students (100%) rated the event as “excellent” and found it to be “highly valuable” to their current training program. The trainees indicated that they were “very likely” (100%) to recommend a friend to attend this type of event. When asked what they liked most about the event, they indicated that the programming was “insightful, and “inspiring” for seeing beyond their current trainee responsibilities. They valued the responsiveness to questions, sharing experiences, and mentoring for career advancement. They especially liked the tours at the HGCTF and the session with the front-line nurses. Changes for the future will include timing and length, information on graduate programs and more student interactions. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Overall, our first educational session was very well-received by both trainees and staff involved as stakeholders. Due to the success of this inaugural event, we intend to continue to draw on the expertise of this collaboration and use a similar blueprint for future events and scientific sessions.

Disability is a common and universal human experience. Yet, people with disabilities (PWDs) are in poorer health and have less access to quality healthcare than their non-disabled peers. In fact, the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) designated PWDs as a health disparities population in 2023. This paper illustrates the application of translational science (TS) principles to overcoming roadblocks to reducing PWDs’ health disparities. Part I provides an overview of health disparities among PWDs and the recent designation – situating both within a TS framework. Part II summarizes literature on specific factors that contribute to PWDs’ exclusion from research, how these factors are reflected in background reports that impelled the designation of PWDs as a disparity population, and how the suggested steps to implement the designation reflect TS principles and its research agenda. Part III describes “Reducing Researcher Roadblocks to Including People with Disabilities in Research (D2/R3),” a TS solution to overcoming PWDs exclusion from research. D2/R3 is our institution’s Clinical and Translational Science Award research project – a mixed-methods study that targets research teams’ knowledge, attitudes, biases, and perceptions that contribution to under representation of persons with developmental disabilities in research.

Objectives/Goals: Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) use prior to bariatric surgery may represent a novel approach to treating obesity. The objectives of this study were to describe trends in pre-bariatric GLP1 use, investigate social and clinical factors associated with their use, and evaluate differences in clinical outcomes based on preoperative GLP1RA use. Methods/Study Population: Patients who underwent bariatric surgery at three Indiana hospitals from 2018 to 2023 were identified. Patients who utilized GLP1 in the year preceding surgery were compared to those who did not. Social determinants of health included insurance, income, and unemployment. Outcomes included rates of GLP1 use, 30-day postoperative readmissions, ED visits, and percent total weight lost (%TWL) at one year. Associations between preoperative GLP1 use and outcomes of interest were evaluated using multivariable logistic and linear regressions. Results/Anticipated Results: Of 2,169 patients who underwent surgery, 293 (13.5%) utilized GLP1 preoperatively. The rate of GLP1 utilization increased threefold from 2018 to 2023. Males were more likely to receive preoperative GLP1 (20.1% vs, 12.2%, p<0.001). There were no significant differences in social determinants of health or 30-day postoperative outcomes between patients who did and did not use GLP1RA preoperatively. Similarly, there were no significant differences in %TWL at one year postoperatively between groups (median 25.5% vs. 27.3%, coefficient: -0.78, 95%CI: -2.26–0.70). Discussion/Significance of Impact: Utilization of GLP1 in the year prior to bariatric surgery has significantly increased. Preoperative GLP1 use is not associated with worse 30-day outcomes or differences in %TWL at one year postoperatively. Further work is needed to evaluate whether GLP1 dosing and duration of treatment impact postoperative outcomes.

Objectives/Goals: Our study’s objective is to evaluate RadOnc-GPT, a GPT-4o powered LLM, in generating responses to in-basket messages related to prostate cancer treatment in the Radiation Oncology department. By integrating it with electronic health record (EHR) systems, the goal is to assess its impact on clinician workload, response quality, and efficiency in healthcare communication. Methods/Study Population: RadOnc-GPT was integrated with patient EHRs from both hospital-wide and radiation-oncology-specific databases. The study examined 158 pre-recorded in-basket message interactions from 90 non-metastatic prostate cancer patients. Quantitative natural language processing analysis and two randomized single-blinded grading studies, involving four clinicians and four nurses, were conducted to evaluate RadOnc-GPT’s response quality in completeness, correctness, clarity, empathy, and estimated editing time. Response times were measured to estimate the time saved for clinicians and nurses. The study population included patient messages across all phases of care (pre-, during, and post-treatment) for those undergoing radiotherapy. Results/Anticipated Results: In the single-blinded grader study, clinician graders evaluated 316 responses (158 from human care teams and 158 from RadOnc-GPT). Results showed RadOnc-GPT outperformed human responses in empathy and clarity, while humans excelled in completeness and correctness. Sentiment analyses using TextBlob and VADER revealed RadOnc-GPT responses had a positive mean score of 0.25, whereas human responses clustered around neutral. VADER analysis indicated a high median score for RadOnc-GPT, nearing 1.0, reflecting predominantly positive sentiment, while human responses displayed a broader sentiment range, indicating sensitivity to context. Clinicians averaged 3.60 minutes (SD 1.44) to respond, compared to 6.39 minutes (SD 4.05) for nurses, highlighting RadOnc-GPT’s efficiency in generating timely responses. Discussion/Significance of Impact: RadOnc-GPT effectively generated responses to individualized patient in-basket messages, comparable to those from radiation oncologists and nurses. While human oversight is still necessary to avoid errors, RadOnc-GPT can speed up response times and reduce pressure on care teams, shifting their role from drafting to reviewing responses.

Objectives/Goals: We evaluated the implementation of a peer-facilitated research best practices training for Community Health Workers and Promotoras (CHW/Ps) at four new partner sites to increase the capacity and capability of a workforce increasingly involved in community-engaged research. Methods/Study Population: Staff were trained using a train-the-trainer model, and materials were disseminated to partners at three academic institutions and one community-based organization. Each site delivered the training virtually or in-person in English and/or Spanish. CHW/P learners at all sites completed online evaluation surveys about the impact of the training on their knowledge and skills for participating in research-related work, and two CHW/Ps from each site participated in follow-up interviews to gather feedback about their experiences. Staff completed fidelity monitoring, follow-up interviews, and three brief surveys regarding feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of implementing the training. Results/Anticipated Results: The four sites conducted six trainings with a total of 42 CHW/Ps. Two sites each conducted one in-person training in English while the other two sites each conducted two virtual trainings, one in English and one in Spanish. Staff noted facilitators to successful implementation, including providing a facilitator guide and course materials in both languages and tips sheets for navigating REDCap; using the train-the-trainer model; and compensating CHW/P learners for attendance. The primary barrier noted was not having a budget for in-person trainings (e.g., refreshments, printed materials). CHW/P learners reported positive experiences with few suggestions for improving the training. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Preliminary results suggest the research best practices training for CHW/Ps is feasible, acceptable, and appropriate for implementation by partners at academic institutions and community-based organizations, regardless of language (i.e., English or Spanish) or delivery (i.e., virtual or in-person).

Actively engaging community health centers (CHCs) in research is necessary to ensure evidence-based practices are relevant to all communities and get us closer to closing the health equity gap. We report here on the Boston HealthNet Research Collaborative, a partnership between health centers, Boston HealthNet and the Boston University Clinical, and Translational Science Institute with the explicit goal of supporting research partnerships early in the planning phase of the study lifecycle. We used the principles of community engagement guided by a collective impact framework to codesign, pilot, and evaluate a process for facilitating research partnerships. Accomplishments in the first 2 years include a web-based Toolkit with a step-by-step guide and an active learning collaborative with health center representatives to support research capacity building. The process resulted in 81 new research project partnerships across 50 individual research projects. Most research partnership requests were made later in the research lifecycle, after the planning phase. Partnership acceptance was largely driven by the Collaborative’s pre-defined Guiding Principles and Rules of Engagement. These lessons drive an iterative process to improve the longitudinal relationship between our translational research program and our CHC partners.

Objectives/Goals: Our goal was to develop a method for creating a streamlined, Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA)-specific translational science scoring rubric to be used to differentiate between translational science and translational research projects during the pilot proposal review process. Methods/Study Population: We created a survey using the 24 Translational Science Principle-based questions sourced from Schneider et al.’s 2023 manuscript in JCTS. Survey respondents were asked to rank the questions from 1 to 24, with “1” being the question that is the most impactful for defining translational science at Penn State. The survey was distributed to our CTSA staff, faculty, and leadership who are well-versed in translational science across all CTSA Cores. The rankings were averaged per question. The five questions with the most impactful average score were selected to be used to evaluate translational science at our CTSA. Results/Anticipated Results: Nine individuals, including faculty, staff, and leadership, across five CTSA Cores completed the survey. The average ranking scores ranged from 6.1 to 20.3. The top five ranked items represented the following four Translational Science Principles: generalizable solutions, efficiency and speed, focus on unmet needs, and cross-disciplinary team science. Importantly, these five items and corresponding translational science principles reflect our CTSA priority areas, the infrastructure support we provide, and the translational research activities conducted at our CTSA. For example, team science is highlighted throughout our CTSA programming, including mini presentations during our CTSA meetings. Discussion/Significance of Impact: This method allows CTSA teams to reflect on their institutional work and share Core-specific perspectives of translational science. This CTSA-specific rubric allows for streamlined translational science pilot proposal evaluation in alignment with site specific CTSA mission and vision.

Community/patient voice has long been stifled in favor of the priorities of powerful health organizations that set the agenda for institutional practices and policies shaping health equity research. Academic Health Centers (AHC) and Clinical Translational Science Centers (CTSC) promote missions that are often unaligned with the realities of community and patient experiences when interacting with researchers and representatives from these institutions. Implementation science has increasingly adopted collaborative and participatory approaches to the design and implementation of health interventions co-created with community/patient group members as equal participants within community-academic partnerships. Community-based participatory research/community-engaged research are widely recognized as approaches to health intervention research that offers the potential for community-patient voice to be heard when the principles of authentic participatory research are adhered to throughout all aspects of the project. For AHC’s and CTSC’s to be fully engaged, the populations they serve must have access to institutional leadership and influence over decision-making about the organizational resources allocated to community/patient groups beyond efforts to cultivate a positive public image. The E2 community/patient champion team focus groups provide unique perspectives on how equitable institutional transformation can be accomplished in a retrospective assessment of the E2 PLUS Intervention.

Objectives/Goals: Physical therapy (PT) is a recognized and evidence-based component of oncology care that has been shown to benefit people with various cancers, such as breast, lung, head and neck, thyroid, or prostate cancer. The goal of this evaluation was to determine the level of PT service utilization by World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program members with cancer. Methods/Study Population: The Program is a limited benefits federal program that serves responders and survivors of the September 11th attacks in New York City, the Pentagon, and Shanksville PA. Our analyses include enrolled Program members with a cancer certification. Cancer types were divided into two categories, Category A (breast, lung, head and neck, thyroid, or prostate cancer) and Non-Category A (all other cancer types). Data included medical claims, certification, and enrollment data from July 2011 to December 2023. The 2023 Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code list from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services were used to identify claims associated with PT interventions. Our analyses describe trends in PT claims, CPT codes, cancer certifications by subtype, and number of members with Category A cancers and PT claims. Results/Anticipated Results: Since the Program’s inception in 2011, PT claims had gradually increased except for in 2020 when there was a sudden decrease, most likely due to the interruption of in-person services due to the COVID-19 pandemic. From 2021 to 2023, PT claims began to increase again. The most common types of PT interventions were therapeutic exercises, manual therapy, and neuromuscular reeducation. In 2023, the most recent year of full data available, Category A cancers made up 38% of all cancer certifications, with prostate and breast cancer being the most common. Category A cancers were evaluated together due to prior existing evidence outlining significant benefit from PT intervention. In total, Category A cancers represent over 14,000 Program members. Less than 1% of members with a Category A cancer had a PT related claim in 2023. Discussion/Significance of Impact: The mission of the Program is to provide quality and compassionate medical care and treatment to our members. Better understanding the utilization of PT services provided by the Program will allow us to increase awareness and support of interventions for members of our Program who could benefit from PT services.

Objectives/Goals: To fully understand the scientific objectives, overall financial commitment, and outcome of the pilot projects. Methods/Study Population: We evaluated pilots reported in the in the annual, interim, and final Research Performance Progress Reports (RPPRs) for Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program UM1 and UL1 grants from FYs 2021–2023 to assess research categories across the translational science spectrum. We analyzed the number of pilots involving human subjects, vertebrate animals, both, or neither; financial allocations; publication outputs; and other characteristics. Pilots reported across multiple years were deduplicated and assigned to the latest reporting year. Each pilot was classified into broad (Category 1) and specific (Category 2) areas. Descriptive statistics, including means and frequency distributions, were generated. Multi-year pilots with NA or 0 values used the most recent prior value. Results/Anticipated Results: In the period from FY 2021 to 2023, 61 hubs reported 1,811 unique pilot projects in their RPPRs, receiving a total of approximately $62 million, of which two-thirds were expended. On average, each hub conducted 30 pilots with an award size of about $35K. Just over half of the pilots involved human subjects research (HSR), while about one-third were neither HSR nor vertebrate animal studies (VAS), with the remaining focused primarily on VAS. Notably, only 13% of pilots resulted in peer-reviewed publications. Collaborative efforts were observed in one-third of the projects. The majority of pilots fell into Preclinical Research (46%), followed by Clinical Research (33%) and Public Health (20%). Limitations in data quality were identified, and ten pilots reported $0 awarded funds, which may be captured in future RPPRs. Discussion/Significance of Impact: Analysis of pilots reported in RPPRs from FYs 2021–2023 across 61 hubs shows a strong focus on HSR, highlighting collaborative efforts that enhance translational science and align with CTSA goals. Future analysis will help assess the pilots’ impact and their alignment with NCATS’ mission to expedite research translation into health solutions.