--- title: "Your Research Project Title" subtitle: "Rashid Lab — New Member Research Presentation" author: "Your Name" institute: "Department of Biostatistics, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health" date: today format: revealjs: theme: [default, custom.css] logo: assets/RLlogoA.png footer: "Rashid Lab · UNC Chapel Hill" slide-number: true transition: fade width: 1920 height: 1080 incremental: false chalkboard: false preview-links: auto embed-resources: true --- ## About Me {.smaller} :::: {.columns} ::: {.column width="60%"} ### Background - **Program:** [PhD in Biostatistics / your program] - **Year:** [1st year, 2nd year, etc.] - **Prior training:** [Undergrad institution, degree, relevant experience] ### Research Interests - [Interest area 1] - [Interest area 2] - [Interest area 3] ::: ::: {.column width="40%"} ### Path to the Rashid Lab [1-2 sentences on what brought you to biostatistics and to this lab specifically. What excites you about the lab's research?] ::: :::: ::: {.notes} **F31 Section → Candidate's Goals, Preparedness, and Potential** (3 pages) As of FORMS-I (Jan 2025), this section was renamed from "Applicant's Background and Goals for Fellowship Training." It now requires four distinct personal statements: 1. Professional and fellowship goals 2. Fellowship qualifications 3. Self-assessment of strengths and areas for growth 4. Scientific perspective — your unique viewpoint on the research problem For this lab talk, focus on introducing yourself and setting the stage for *why* you're the right person to tackle this problem. Think about: What skills from your prior training are relevant? What gaps in your training does this PhD fill? What's your unique scientific lens? READ MORE: - What changed: https://grants.nih.gov/policy-and-compliance/policy-topics/peer-review/revisions-nih-fellowship-application-review-process/changes-to-fellowship-applications - Full instructions (FORMS-I PDF): https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide/forms-i/fellowship-forms-i.pdf NOTE: Under the revised review criteria, grades are no longer required or allowed in the candidate biosketch. The emphasis has shifted toward evaluating your *potential* and *scientific perspective* rather than academic metrics. ::: ## The Problem {.smaller} ### [Disease / Statistical Challenge / Scientific Question] [2-3 sentences framing the broad problem area. Why should anyone care?] ### The Burden :::: {.columns} ::: {.column width="50%"} - [Key statistic about disease burden, prevalence, or impact] - [Current standard of care or existing methods] - [Limitation of current approaches] ::: ::: {.column width="50%"} *[Placeholder: Add a figure illustrating the problem scope]* ::: :::: ::: {.notes} **F31 Section → Significance (within Research Training Project Strategy)** (6 pages total for Significance + Innovation + Approach) The Research Training Project Strategy section was renamed from "Research Strategy" in FORMS-I. The Significance subsection answers: "Does this study address an important problem?" You need to explain the scientific premise — what's known, what current methods exist, and how they fall short. Reviewers want to see that you understand the landscape. Key questions to answer: - What is the clinical/scientific impact if the problem remains unsolved? - What existing methods or knowledge does your work build on? - Who benefits from solving this problem? READ MORE: - Page limits: https://grants.nih.gov/grants-process/write-application/how-to-apply-application-guide/page-limits - Parent F31 announcement: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-25-422.html ::: ## What's Missing {.smaller} ### Gaps in Current Knowledge ::: {.callout-note} **Central Gap:** [One sentence stating the critical knowledge gap or methodological limitation your research addresses] ::: 1. **Gap 1:** [Description of first gap in the literature or methodology] 2. **Gap 2:** [Description of second gap] 3. **Gap 3:** [Description of third gap, if applicable] ### Why These Gaps Matter [1-2 sentences connecting the gaps back to patient outcomes, scientific understanding, or methodological needs] ::: {.notes} **F31 Section → Significance (continued)** This is the "so what?" slide. Strong F31 applications create a clear narrative: "Here is the problem → here is what we know → here is what we DON'T know → and here is why that gap is consequential." The gaps you identify here should lead directly to your Specific Aims on the next slide. Each aim should address one or more of these gaps. Tip: Reviewers look for gaps that are *tractable* — not just important, but solvable within a PhD timeline with available data and methods. READ MORE: - Review criteria (what reviewers score): https://grants.nih.gov/policy-and-compliance/policy-topics/peer-review/revisions-nih-fellowship-application-review-process/changes-to-fellowship-review-criteria ::: ## Specific Aims {.smaller} ### Long-term Goal [One sentence: your broad career-level research goal] ### Overall Objective [One sentence: what this specific project will accomplish] ### Central Hypothesis [One sentence: the testable hypothesis driving your work] --- **Aim 1:** [Aim title — action verb + what you will do] > [One sentence rationale and expected outcome] **Aim 2:** [Aim title — action verb + what you will do] > [One sentence rationale and expected outcome] **Aim 3 (if applicable):** [Aim title — action verb + what you will do] > [One sentence rationale and expected outcome] ::: {.notes} **F31 Section → Research Training Project Specific Aims** (1 page) Renamed from "Specific Aims" in FORMS-I to emphasize the training context. This is still the single most important page of an F31 — it must stand alone. Reviewers read it first and form their initial impression here. Structure (classic format): 1. Opening paragraph: problem + significance (2-3 sentences) 2. "What is known" paragraph: current state of knowledge 3. "What is NOT known" paragraph: the gap (leads to your hypothesis) 4. Overall objective + central hypothesis 5. Aims (2-3, usually) 6. Impact statement: how the field changes if aims are achieved Tips: - Each aim should be *independently achievable* — if Aim 1 fails, Aim 2 should still be feasible - Aims should be related but not dependent on each other's outcomes - Use strong action verbs: Develop, Evaluate, Characterize, Determine - For biostatistics, aims often follow a pattern: (1) develop method, (2) evaluate via simulation, (3) apply to real data READ MORE: - F31 overview and eligibility: https://grants.nih.gov/funding/activity-codes/F31 - Full application instructions: https://grants.nih.gov/grants-process/write-application/how-to-apply-application-guide ::: ## Aim 1: [Short Title] {.smaller} ### Rationale [Why is this aim necessary? What gap does it address?] ### Approach :::: {.columns} ::: {.column width="50%"} **Data** - [Data source(s)] - [Sample size / key characteristics] - [How data will be obtained] **Methods** - [Statistical method or model] - [Key assumptions] - [Software / implementation] ::: ::: {.column width="50%"} **Expected Outcomes** - [Primary expected result] - [Secondary expected result] **Potential Problems & Alternatives** - [What could go wrong?] - [Backup plan or alternative approach] ::: :::: ::: {.notes} **F31 Section → Approach (within Research Training Project Strategy)** (6 pages shared with Significance and Innovation) The Approach subsection is where reviewers evaluate whether your plan is feasible and rigorous. For each aim, address: - Rationale: Why this aim? How does it connect to the overall objective? - Design: What's the study design, data source, and analytical approach? - Expected outcomes: What do you expect to find? - Potential problems: What might go wrong, and what's your backup? The "potential problems and alternative approaches" subsection is critical. It shows maturity and planning — reviewers worry about trainees who haven't considered failure modes. For biostatistics students: clearly describe the statistical methodology and how it improves on existing approaches. Include enough mathematical detail that a quantitative reviewer can assess rigor. READ MORE: - FORMS-I fellowship instructions (PDF): https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide/forms-i/fellowship-forms-i.pdf - NIAID tips on fellowship applications: https://www.niaid.nih.gov/grants-contracts/fellowship-grants ::: ## Aim 2: [Short Title] {.smaller} ### Rationale [Why is this aim necessary? What gap does it address?] ### Approach :::: {.columns} ::: {.column width="50%"} **Data** - [Data source(s)] - [Sample size / key characteristics] - [How data will be obtained] **Methods** - [Statistical method or model] - [Key assumptions] - [Software / implementation] ::: ::: {.column width="50%"} **Expected Outcomes** - [Primary expected result] - [Secondary expected result] **Potential Problems & Alternatives** - [What could go wrong?] - [Backup plan or alternative approach] ::: :::: ::: {.notes} **F31 Section → Approach (continued)** Same structure as Aim 1. Make sure to articulate how this aim complements Aim 1 without being dependent on it. If your aims use a shared data source, describe it in full under Aim 1 and reference it briefly here. Think about: Does each aim result in a distinct, publishable contribution? Strong F31 applications often map aims to dissertation chapters / papers. READ MORE: - NCI F31 guidance (useful even for non-cancer applications): https://www.cancer.gov/grants-training/training/funding/f31 ::: ## What's New About This Work {.smaller} ### Innovation :::: {.columns} ::: {.column width="50%"} **Methodological Innovation** - [Novel statistical method, model, or algorithm] - [New combination of existing approaches] - [Improved computational approach] ::: ::: {.column width="50%"} **Applied Innovation** - [New application domain for existing methods] - [Novel data source or integration] - [Clinical or translational impact] ::: :::: ::: {.callout-tip} **How is this different from what exists?** [One sentence capturing the core novelty of your approach compared to the status quo] ::: ::: {.notes} **F31 Section → Innovation (within Research Training Project Strategy)** The Innovation subsection answers: "Does the project employ novel concepts, approaches, or methodologies?" NIH defines innovation along three axes: 1. Novel theoretical concepts or frameworks 2. Novel methodologies, tools, or technologies 3. Novel applications of existing tools to new problems You don't need to be novel on all three — but be specific about where your contribution lies. Avoid vague claims like "no one has done this before." Instead, explain *how* your approach shifts the current paradigm. For biostatistics: methodological novelty is often your strongest card. Clearly articulate what your method can do that existing methods cannot. READ MORE: - Parent F31 announcement with full description: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-25-422.html ::: ## Preliminary Data {.smaller} ### Current Progress [Describe any preliminary work, pilot analyses, or initial results. It's perfectly fine if this is minimal — you're early in your PhD!] :::: {.columns} ::: {.column width="50%"} *[Placeholder: preliminary figure or simulation result]* ::: ::: {.column width="50%"} **Key Observations** - [What does the preliminary data suggest?] - [How does it support your hypothesis or approach?] - [What questions remain?] ::: :::: ::: {.notes} **F31 Section → Approach (Preliminary Studies, within Research Training Project Strategy)** Preliminary data strengthens your application by demonstrating feasibility. For new students, this might be: - A simulation study showing your method works in simple settings - Exploratory data analysis of your data source - A literature-based power analysis or sample size justification - Replication of a key result from a prior paper Even a small pilot result is valuable. It shows reviewers you can execute the work and that the project is tractable. Don't worry if you have little to show yet — frame what you DO have as evidence of feasibility and your capability. READ MORE: - NIH fellowship training portal: https://researchtraining.nih.gov/programs/fellowships ::: ## Training Goals {.smaller} ### What I Need to Learn :::: {.columns} ::: {.column width="50%"} **Methodological Skills** - [Statistical methodology area 1] - [Computational skill] - [Software or programming skill] **Domain Knowledge** - [Clinical or scientific domain knowledge] - [Relevant biology / epidemiology / etc.] ::: ::: {.column width="50%"} **Professional Development** - [Scientific communication (writing, presenting)] - [Teaching or mentoring experience] - [Grant writing] - [Responsible conduct of research] **Planned Coursework / Training** - [Specific courses] - [Workshops, seminars, or conferences] - [Collaborations or rotations] ::: :::: ::: {.notes} **F31 Section → Training Activities and Timelines** (3 pages, NEW in FORMS-I) This is a new standalone section in FORMS-I, separated from the old "Applicant's Background" section. It now gets its own 3-page allocation, signaling that NIH wants more detail on your training plan. The F31 is a *training* grant — reviewers evaluate whether your proposed training plan will prepare you for an independent research career. This section should show self-awareness: what skills do you have, and what gaps need filling? Think about: - Short-term goals (during the PhD): what skills will this project teach you? - Long-term goals (career): where are you headed? (Academia, industry, government — all are valid) - How does *this specific project* serve your career trajectory? - What activities (courses, workshops, collaborations) will fill your gaps? Concrete details matter: "Take BIOS 735 (Advanced Bayesian Methods)" is stronger than "learn advanced statistics." READ MORE: - What changed in FORMS-I: https://grants.nih.gov/policy-and-compliance/policy-topics/peer-review/revisions-nih-fellowship-application-review-process/changes-to-fellowship-applications - Review criteria changes: https://grants.nih.gov/policy-and-compliance/policy-topics/peer-review/revisions-nih-fellowship-application-review-process/changes-to-fellowship-review-criteria ::: ## Project Timeline {.smaller} | Phase | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Year 5 | |:------|:------:|:------:|:------:|:------:|:------:| | **Coursework** | ██████ | ████── | ────── | ────── | ────── | | **Aim 1** | ──████ | ██████ | ██──── | ────── | ────── | | **Aim 2** | ────── | ──████ | ██████ | ████── | ────── | | **Aim 3** | ────── | ────── | ──████ | ██████ | ────── | | **Dissertation writing** | ────── | ────── | ────── | ──████ | ██████ | | **Manuscripts** | ────── | ────── | ████── | ──████ | ████── | : {.striped} [Adjust the timeline to reflect your actual PhD stage and expected progression. Shade blocks to show overlap and concurrent activities.] ::: {.notes} **F31 Section → Training Activities and Timelines (continued)** The timeline demonstrates feasibility. Reviewers want to see that you've thought through the order of operations and that the work is completable within the fellowship period (typically 2-3 years of F31 support). Tips: - Show some aim overlap — sequential aims can raise concerns about delays - Include milestones: qualifying exams, preliminary results, manuscripts - Be realistic — ambitious but achievable - F31 typically supports years 3-5 of a PhD in biostatistics - Under FORMS-I, the training timeline is now part of a dedicated section — reviewers expect a detailed mapping of activities to timepoints READ MORE: - Page limits for all sections: https://grants.nih.gov/grants-process/write-application/how-to-apply-application-guide/page-limits ::: ## Mentoring & Environment {.smaller} ### Mentor :::: {.columns} ::: {.column width="50%"} **Primary Mentor: Dr. Naim Rashid** - Dept. of Biostatistics, UNC Chapel Hill - [Mentor's relevant expertise areas] - [How mentor's expertise aligns with your project] **Co-mentor(s) (if applicable):** - [Name, department, expertise] ::: ::: {.column width="50%"} **Training Environment** - UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health - [Relevant centers, institutes, or programs] - [Available data resources or collaborations] - [Computational resources (e.g., Longleaf HPC)] **Committee Members** - [Name — expertise area] - [Name — expertise area] ::: :::: ::: {.notes} **F31 Section → Commitment to Candidate, Mentoring, and Training Environment** (6 pages for sponsor statements + 2 pages for institutional environment description) This entire section was renamed from "Sponsor(s), Collaborator(s), and Consultant(s)" in FORMS-I. The new structure requires sponsors to provide five required statements: 1. Mentoring Approach and Candidate Mentoring Plan 2. Prior Commitment to Training and Mentoring 3. Commitment to the Candidate's Research Training Plan 4. Research Training Environment 5. Candidate's Potential The renaming signals a shift: reviewers are now explicitly told to evaluate the *quality of the mentoring plan* rather than being influenced by the sponsor's or institution's reputation alone. For your lab talk, this is a chance to articulate what you hope to gain from the mentoring relationship and the department. Think about: - What specific expertise does your mentor bring? - What complementary expertise do co-mentors or committee members add? - What institutional resources (data, computing, collaborations) are available? READ MORE: - What changed for sponsors: https://grants.nih.gov/policy-and-compliance/policy-topics/peer-review/revisions-nih-fellowship-application-review-process/changes-to-fellowship-applications - Full review criteria: https://grants.nih.gov/policy-and-compliance/policy-topics/peer-review/revisions-nih-fellowship-application-review-process/changes-to-fellowship-review-criteria ::: ## Summary {.smaller} ::: {.callout-note} ### Key Takeaways 1. **Problem:** [One sentence — what problem are you solving?] 2. **Approach:** [One sentence — how are you solving it?] 3. **Innovation:** [One sentence — what's new?] 4. **Impact:** [One sentence — why does it matter?] ::: ### Next Steps - [Immediate next step in your research] - [Key milestone in the next 3-6 months] - [What feedback would be most helpful from the lab?] ::: {.notes} This summary slide is not part of the F31 per se, but it mirrors the "Impact" closing statement of the Specific Aims page. A strong closing ties everything together: problem → gap → your approach → expected impact. Use this slide to explicitly ask the lab for feedback. Good questions: - "Does the framing of the problem make sense to non-experts?" - "Are there methods I should consider for Aim 2?" - "Does anyone have experience with [data source / software]?" ::: ## Discussion {.centered} ### Thank You
**Questions, suggestions, and feedback welcome!**
[Your Name]{.text-carolina} · [your_email@unc.edu]{.text-navy} ::: {.notes} Open the floor for discussion. Lab meetings are collaborative — encourage questions about methodology, framing, data sources, and training goals. Remember: the goal of this presentation is not to have everything figured out. It's to organize your thinking and get early feedback from the lab. ::: ## F31 Quick Reference {visibility="uncounted" .smaller} ### Key NIH Links | Resource | URL | |:---------|:----| | **F31 Overview** | | | **Parent F31 (PA-25-422)** | | | **How to Apply** | | | **FORMS-I Instructions (PDF)** | | | **Page Limits** | | | **FORMS-I Section Changes** | | | **Revised Review Criteria** | | | **NIH Fellowship Portal** | | | **NCI F31 Tips** | | | **NIA F31 Tips** | | | **NIAID Fellowship Tips** | | ### F31 Page Limits (FORMS-I) | Section | Limit | |:--------|:-----:| | Research Training Project Specific Aims | 1 page | | Research Training Project Strategy | 6 pages | | Candidate's Goals, Preparedness, and Potential | 3 pages | | Training Activities and Timelines | 3 pages | | Sponsor(s) Commitment | 6 pages | | Description of Institutional Environment | 2 pages | ::: {.notes} This reference slide collects all the NIH links and page limits in one place. Keep it handy as you start thinking about your F31 application. The page limits above are for FORMS-I (effective January 25, 2025). Always check the specific Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for your target institute, as some ICs have additional requirements. ::: ## References {visibility="uncounted" .smaller} 1. [Author et al. (Year). Title. *Journal*. DOI] 2. [Author et al. (Year). Title. *Journal*. DOI] 3. [Author et al. (Year). Title. *Journal*. DOI] ::: {.notes} Keep a reference slide for Q&A. You can also use Quarto's built-in citation support with a .bib file for automated references. ::: ## Backup: Detailed Methods {visibility="uncounted" .smaller} [Additional methodological details for anticipated questions] ::: {.notes} Backup slides are common in academic presentations. Prepare 2-3 slides with deeper technical details for likely questions: - Detailed model specification or likelihood - Simulation design parameters - Additional preliminary results - Comparison with alternative methods :::