Information about individual publications associated with grants funded by NSF to support SES research from 2000-2015 (see "SES grants, 2000-2015"). For grants with ten or fewer publications, we included information about all available publications in this dataset. For grants with more than ten publications, we randomly selected ten to include in this dataset. CSV file with 13 columns and names in header row: "Grant ID" is the ID from the Dimensions platform (string); "Grant Number" is the NSF Award number (integer); "Publication Title" is the title of the paper (text); "Publication Year" is the year in which the paper was published (year); "Authors" is a list or abbreviated list of the authors of the paper (text); "Journal" is the name of the scientific journal or outlet in which the paper is published (text); "Interdis Rubric 1" is a metric representing the dataset authors' assessment for the level of interdisciplinarity represented by the paper (integer: “1” indicated social and natural science interdisciplinarity where both social and environmental conditions are measured or explored and/or author affiliations included departments across these disciplines; “2” indicated general interdisciplinarity between two or more different fields (that may both be within natural or social science); and “3” indicated single-disciplinarity) "Citations" is the count of citations the paper had received as of the date listed in "date for cite count", as reported in Google Scholar (integer); "date for cite count" is the date on which citation count for the paper was obtained (ddBBByy); "Abstract" is the text of the abstract of the paper, where available (text); "Notes" are any notes added by the authors of the dataset (text).
more »
« less
SES Grants, 2000-2015
Information about grants funded by NSF to support SES research from 2000-2015. The grants included in this dataset are a subset that we identified as having an SES research focus from a set of grants accessed using the Dimensions platform (https://dimensions.ai). CSV file with 35 columns and names in header row: "Grant Searched" lists the granting NSF program (text); "Grant Searched 2" lists a secondary granting NSF program, if applicable (text); "Grant ID" is the ID from the Dimensions platform (string); "Grant Number" is the NSF Award number (integer); "Number of Papers (NSF)" is the count of publications listed under "PUBLICATIONS PRODUCED AS A RESULT OF THIS RESEARCH" in the NSF Award Search page for the grant (integer); "Number of Pubs Tracked" is the count of publications from "Number of Papers (NSF)" included in our analysis (integer); "Publication notes" are our notes about the publication information. We used "subset" to denote when a grant was associated with >10 publications and we used a random sample of 10 publications in our analysis (text); "Unique ID" is our unique identifier for each grant in the dataset (integer); "Collaborative/Cross Program" denotes whether the grant was submitted as part of a set of collaborative or cross-program proposals. In this case, all linked proposals are given the same unique identifier and treated together in the analysis. (text); "Title" is the title of the grant (text); "Title translated" is the title of the grant translated to English, where applicable (text); "Abstract" is the abstract of the grant (text); "Abstract translated" is the abstract of the grant translated to English, where applicable (text); "Funding Amount" is the numeric value of funding awarded to the grant (integer); "Currency" is the currency associated with the field "Funding Amount" (text); "Funding Amount in USD" is the numeric value of funding awarded to the grant expressed in US Dollars (integer); "Start Date" is the start date of the grant (mm/dd/yyyy); "Start Year" is the year in which grant funding began (year); "End Date" is the end date of the grant (mm/dd/yyyy); "End Year" is the year in which the term of the grant expired (year); "Researchers" lists the Principal Investigators on the grant in First Name Last Name format, separated by semi-colons (text); "Research Organization - original" gives the affiliation of the lead PI as listed in the grant (text); "Research Organization - standardized" gives the affiliation of each PI in the list, separated by semi-colons (text); "GRID ID" is a list of the unique identifier for each the Research Organization in the Global Research Identifier Database [https://grid.ac/?_ga=2.26738100.847204331.1643218575-1999717347.1643218575], separated by semi-colons (string); "Country of Research organization" is a list of the countries in which each Research Organization is located, separated by semi-colons (text); "Funder" gives the NSF Directorate that funded the grant (text); "Source Linkout" is a link to the NSF Award Search page with information about the grant (URL); "Dimensions URL" is a link to information about the grant in Dimensions (URL); "FOR (ANZSRC) Categories" is a list of Field of Research categories [from the Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification (ANZSRC) system] associated with each grant, separated by semi-colons (string); "FOR [1-5]" give the FOR categories separated. "NOTES" provide any other notes added by the authors of this dataset during our processing of these data.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1924670
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10482839
- Publisher / Repository:
- Harvard Dataverse
- Date Published:
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Obeid, I. (Ed.)The Neural Engineering Data Consortium (NEDC) is developing the Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus (TUDP), an open source database of high-resolution images from scanned pathology samples [1], as part of its National Science Foundation-funded Major Research Instrumentation grant titled “MRI: High Performance Digital Pathology Using Big Data and Machine Learning” [2]. The long-term goal of this project is to release one million images. We have currently scanned over 100,000 images and are in the process of annotating breast tissue data for our first official corpus release, v1.0.0. This release contains 3,505 annotated images of breast tissue including 74 patients with cancerous diagnoses (out of a total of 296 patients). In this poster, we will present an analysis of this corpus and discuss the challenges we have faced in efficiently producing high quality annotations of breast tissue. It is well known that state of the art algorithms in machine learning require vast amounts of data. Fields such as speech recognition [3], image recognition [4] and text processing [5] are able to deliver impressive performance with complex deep learning models because they have developed large corpora to support training of extremely high-dimensional models (e.g., billions of parameters). Other fields that do not have access to such data resources must rely on techniques in which existing models can be adapted to new datasets [6]. A preliminary version of this breast corpus release was tested in a pilot study using a baseline machine learning system, ResNet18 [7], that leverages several open-source Python tools. The pilot corpus was divided into three sets: train, development, and evaluation. Portions of these slides were manually annotated [1] using the nine labels in Table 1 [8] to identify five to ten examples of pathological features on each slide. Not every pathological feature is annotated, meaning excluded areas can include focuses particular to these labels that are not used for training. A summary of the number of patches within each label is given in Table 2. To maintain a balanced training set, 1,000 patches of each label were used to train the machine learning model. Throughout all sets, only annotated patches were involved in model development. The performance of this model in identifying all the patches in the evaluation set can be seen in the confusion matrix of classification accuracy in Table 3. The highest performing labels were background, 97% correct identification, and artifact, 76% correct identification. A correlation exists between labels with more than 6,000 development patches and accurate performance on the evaluation set. Additionally, these results indicated a need to further refine the annotation of invasive ductal carcinoma (“indc”), inflammation (“infl”), nonneoplastic features (“nneo”), normal (“norm”) and suspicious (“susp”). This pilot experiment motivated changes to the corpus that will be discussed in detail in this poster presentation. To increase the accuracy of the machine learning model, we modified how we addressed underperforming labels. One common source of error arose with how non-background labels were converted into patches. Large areas of background within other labels were isolated within a patch resulting in connective tissue misrepresenting a non-background label. In response, the annotation overlay margins were revised to exclude benign connective tissue in non-background labels. Corresponding patient reports and supporting immunohistochemical stains further guided annotation reviews. The microscopic diagnoses given by the primary pathologist in these reports detail the pathological findings within each tissue site, but not within each specific slide. The microscopic diagnoses informed revisions specifically targeting annotated regions classified as cancerous, ensuring that the labels “indc” and “dcis” were used only in situations where a micropathologist diagnosed it as such. Further differentiation of cancerous and precancerous labels, as well as the location of their focus on a slide, could be accomplished with supplemental immunohistochemically (IHC) stained slides. When distinguishing whether a focus is a nonneoplastic feature versus a cancerous growth, pathologists employ antigen targeting stains to the tissue in question to confirm the diagnosis. For example, a nonneoplastic feature of usual ductal hyperplasia will display diffuse staining for cytokeratin 5 (CK5) and no diffuse staining for estrogen receptor (ER), while a cancerous growth of ductal carcinoma in situ will have negative or focally positive staining for CK5 and diffuse staining for ER [9]. Many tissue samples contain cancerous and non-cancerous features with morphological overlaps that cause variability between annotators. The informative fields IHC slides provide could play an integral role in machine model pathology diagnostics. Following the revisions made on all the annotations, a second experiment was run using ResNet18. Compared to the pilot study, an increase of model prediction accuracy was seen for the labels indc, infl, nneo, norm, and null. This increase is correlated with an increase in annotated area and annotation accuracy. Model performance in identifying the suspicious label decreased by 25% due to the decrease of 57% in the total annotated area described by this label. A summary of the model performance is given in Table 4, which shows the new prediction accuracy and the absolute change in error rate compared to Table 3. The breast tissue subset we are developing includes 3,505 annotated breast pathology slides from 296 patients. The average size of a scanned SVS file is 363 MB. The annotations are stored in an XML format. A CSV version of the annotation file is also available which provides a flat, or simple, annotation that is easy for machine learning researchers to access and interface to their systems. Each patient is identified by an anonymized medical reference number. Within each patient’s directory, one or more sessions are identified, also anonymized to the first of the month in which the sample was taken. These sessions are broken into groupings of tissue taken on that date (in this case, breast tissue). A deidentified patient report stored as a flat text file is also available. Within these slides there are a total of 16,971 total annotated regions with an average of 4.84 annotations per slide. Among those annotations, 8,035 are non-cancerous (normal, background, null, and artifact,) 6,222 are carcinogenic signs (inflammation, nonneoplastic and suspicious,) and 2,714 are cancerous labels (ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive ductal carcinoma in situ.) The individual patients are split up into three sets: train, development, and evaluation. Of the 74 cancerous patients, 20 were allotted for both the development and evaluation sets, while the remain 34 were allotted for train. The remaining 222 patients were split up to preserve the overall distribution of labels within the corpus. This was done in hope of creating control sets for comparable studies. Overall, the development and evaluation sets each have 80 patients, while the training set has 136 patients. In a related component of this project, slides from the Fox Chase Cancer Center (FCCC) Biosample Repository (https://www.foxchase.org/research/facilities/genetic-research-facilities/biosample-repository -facility) are being digitized in addition to slides provided by Temple University Hospital. This data includes 18 different types of tissue including approximately 38.5% urinary tissue and 16.5% gynecological tissue. These slides and the metadata provided with them are already anonymized and include diagnoses in a spreadsheet with sample and patient ID. We plan to release over 13,000 unannotated slides from the FCCC Corpus simultaneously with v1.0.0 of TUDP. Details of this release will also be discussed in this poster. Few digitally annotated databases of pathology samples like TUDP exist due to the extensive data collection and processing required. The breast corpus subset should be released by November 2021. By December 2021 we should also release the unannotated FCCC data. We are currently annotating urinary tract data as well. We expect to release about 5,600 processed TUH slides in this subset. We have an additional 53,000 unprocessed TUH slides digitized. Corpora of this size will stimulate the development of a new generation of deep learning technology. In clinical settings where resources are limited, an assistive diagnoses model could support pathologists’ workload and even help prioritize suspected cancerous cases. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This material is supported by the National Science Foundation under grants nos. CNS-1726188 and 1925494. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. REFERENCES [1] N. Shawki et al., “The Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York City, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 67 104. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030368432. [2] J. Picone, T. Farkas, I. Obeid, and Y. Persidsky, “MRI: High Performance Digital Pathology Using Big Data and Machine Learning.” Major Research Instrumentation (MRI), Division of Computer and Network Systems, Award No. 1726188, January 1, 2018 – December 31, 2021. https://www. isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_dpath/. [3] A. Gulati et al., “Conformer: Convolution-augmented Transformer for Speech Recognition,” in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (INTERSPEECH), 2020, pp. 5036-5040. https://doi.org/10.21437/interspeech.2020-3015. [4] C.-J. Wu et al., “Machine Learning at Facebook: Understanding Inference at the Edge,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA), 2019, pp. 331–344. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8675201. [5] I. Caswell and B. Liang, “Recent Advances in Google Translate,” Google AI Blog: The latest from Google Research, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://ai.googleblog.com/2020/06/recent-advances-in-google-translate.html. [Accessed: 01-Aug-2021]. [6] V. Khalkhali, N. Shawki, V. Shah, M. Golmohammadi, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Low Latency Real-Time Seizure Detection Using Transfer Deep Learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB), 2021, pp. 1 7. https://www.isip. piconepress.com/publications/conference_proceedings/2021/ieee_spmb/eeg_transfer_learning/. [7] J. Picone, T. Farkas, I. Obeid, and Y. Persidsky, “MRI: High Performance Digital Pathology Using Big Data and Machine Learning,” Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 2020. https://www.isip.piconepress.com/publications/reports/2020/nsf/mri_dpath/. [8] I. Hunt, S. Husain, J. Simons, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Recent Advances in the Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB), 2019, pp. 1–4. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9037859. [9] A. P. Martinez, C. Cohen, K. Z. Hanley, and X. (Bill) Li, “Estrogen Receptor and Cytokeratin 5 Are Reliable Markers to Separate Usual Ductal Hyperplasia From Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia and Low-Grade Ductal Carcinoma In Situ,” Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med., vol. 140, no. 7, pp. 686–689, Apr. 2016. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2015-0238-OA.more » « less
-
Applying for grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF) requires a paradigm shift at many community and technical colleges, because the primary emphasis at two-year colleges is on teaching. This shift is necessary because of the NSF expectation that a STEM faculty member will lead the project as Principal Investigator. Preparing successful NSF grant proposals also requires knowledge, skills, and strategies that differ from other sources from which two-year colleges seek grant funding. Since 2012, the Mentor-Connect project has been working to build capacity among two-year colleges and leadership skills among their STEM faculty to help them prepare competitive grant proposals for the National Science Foundation’s Advanced Technological Education (NSF-ATE) program. NSF-ATE focuses on improving the education of technicians for advanced technology fields that drive the nation’s economy. As an NSF-ATE-funded initiative, Mentor-Connect has developed a three-pronged approach of mentoring, technical assistance, and digital resources to help potential grantees with the complexities of the proposal submission process. Grant funding makes it possible to provide this help at no cost to eligible, two-year college educators. Mentor-Connect support services for prospective grantees are available for those who are new to ATE (community or technical colleges that have not received an NSF ATE award in 7 or more years), those seeking a larger second grant from the ATE Program after completing a small, new-to-ATE project, and for those whose first or second grant proposal submission to the NSF ATE Program was declined (not funded). The Mentor-Connect project has succeeded in raising interest in the NSF-ATE program. Over a seven-year period more than 80% of the 143 participating colleges have submitted proposals. Overall, the funding rate among colleges that participated in the Mentor-Connect project is exceptionally high. Of the 97 New-to-ATE proposals submitted from Cohorts 1 through 6, 71 have been funded, for a funding rate of 73%. Mentor-Connect is also contributing to a more geographically and demographically diverse NSF-ATE program. To analyze longer-term impacts, the project’s evaluator is conducting campus site visits at the new-to-ATE grantee institutions as their initial ATE projects are being completed. A third-party researcher has contributed to the site-visit protocol being used by evaluators. The researcher is also analyzing the site-visit reports to harvest outcomes from this work. This paper shares findings from seven cohorts that have completed a grant cycle with funding results known, as well as qualitative data from site visits with the first two cohorts of grantees. Recommendations for further research are also included.more » « less
-
Applying for grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF) requires a paradigm shift at many community and technical colleges, because the primary emphasis at two-year colleges is on teaching. This shift is necessary because of the NSF expectation that a STEM faculty member will lead the project as Principal Investigator. Preparing successful NSF grant proposals also requires knowledge, skills, and strategies that differ from other sources from which two-year colleges seek grant funding. Since 2012, the Mentor-Connect project has been working to build capacity among two-year colleges and leadership skills among their STEM faculty to help them prepare competitive grant proposals for the National Science Foundation’s Advanced Technological Education (NSF-ATE) program. NSF-ATE focuses on improving the education of technicians for advanced technology fields that drive the nation’s economy. As an NSF-ATE-funded initiative, Mentor-Connect has developed a three-pronged approach of mentoring, technical assistance, and digital resources to help potential grantees with the complexities of the proposal submission process. Grant funding makes it possible to provide this help at no cost to eligible, two-year college educators. Mentor-Connect support services for prospective grantees are available for those who are new to ATE (community or technical colleges that have not received an NSF ATE award in 7 or more years), those seeking a larger second grant from the ATE Program after completing a small, new-to-ATE project, and for those whose first or second grant proposal submission to the NSF ATE Program was declined (not funded). The Mentor-Connect project has succeeded in raising interest in the NSF-ATE program. Over a seven-year period more than 80% of the 143 participating colleges have submitted proposals. Overall, the funding rate among colleges that participated in the Mentor-Connect project is exceptionally high. Of the 97 New-to-ATE proposals submitted from Cohorts 1 through 6, 71 have been funded, for a funding rate of 73%. Mentor-Connect is also contributing to a more geographically and demographically diverse NSF-ATE program. To analyze longer-term impacts, the project’s evaluator is conducting campus site visits at the new-to-ATE grantee institutions as their initial ATE projects are being completed. A third-party researcher has contributed to the site-visit protocol being used by evaluators. The researcher is also analyzing the site-visit reports to harvest outcomes from this work. This paper shares findings from seven cohorts that have completed a grant cycle with funding results known, as well as qualitative data from site visits with the first two cohorts of grantees. Recommendations for further research are also included.more » « less
-
Too few two-year technical and community colleges pursue funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF). Instead, they tend to rely on the U.S. Department of Education or the U.S. Department of Labor for federal grants. From the way grant funding opportunities are announced, to the processes used in reviewing proposals and making funding decisions, to the policies and procedures that govern submission of proposals and implementation of grants, NSF operates differently from other federal funding agencies that make grant awards. The Advanced Technological Education (ATE) Program is unique within NSF because of its focus on two-year colleges and workforce development, specifically for those who complete for-credit programs of study and earn credentials that enable program completers to enter the skilled technical workforce. NSF expects faculty to be involved in developing proposals and implementing projects funded by the agency. Meeting this expectation requires a paradigm shift for many community and technical colleges where the primary emphasis is on teaching and where there is seldom any expectation that faculty will contribute to college efforts to secure external funding from federal sources. In addition, in 2021, the overall NSF funding rate was 26% which presents daunting odds for success. However, 10 years of research demonstrate the effectiveness of an intervention that dramatically increases the funding rate for two-year colleges seeking funding from the NSF ATE Program. Since 2012, the Mentor-Connect initiative has been funded by the NSF ATE Program to help two-year college technician educators and related STEM faculty develop the grant-writing skills needed to meet NSF expectations and benefit from ATE funding. Over the past decade, 80% of Mentor-Connect participants have successfully submitted proposals. To date, the average funding rate for these proposals is 71%. This paper describes how the Mentor-Connect intervention works and for whom, what outcomes have resulted for participants who become grantees, and how two-year colleges and technician educators can benefit.more » « less
