Research Grants Using the Resources from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) (R01) | Apply Online

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the "Research Grants Using the Resources from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) (R01)" opportunity (PA-13-236)?

This was an NIH discretionary funding opportunity that used the R01 research project grant mechanism to encourage investigators to conduct research using Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) resources. The intent was to expand scientific use of the OAI database, related clinical datasets, imaging collections (such as MR images and X-rays), and linked materials to generate new osteoarthritis (OA) knowledge and/or develop analytic tools that make large-scale OAI analyses more efficient and reproducible.

What was the main goal of this FOA?

The central goal was to push broader and deeper use of the existing, high-value longitudinal OAI resource by the wider research community. NIH used the FOA to signal that rigorous secondary analyses, tool development, and other projects centered on OAI data and materials were a clear program priority for peer review and funding consideration.

Who was the sponsoring agency?

The sponsoring agency was the National Institutes of Health (NIH), including NIAMS and collaborating partners referenced in the opportunity description.

What funding mechanism did this opportunity use?

The opportunity used the NIH R01 research project grant mechanism.

Is this funding opportunity still open?

No. The announcement was posted on May 31, 2013, and it closed on January 7, 2016. It had an archive date of February 7, 2016, and is no longer active.

Where could applicants historically find the full announcement?

The full announcement was historically accessible in the NIH Grants Guide at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-13-236.html

What research areas did this FOA emphasize?

The scope emphasized osteoarthritis (OA), with particular attention to knee OA and also hip OA where relevant. Projects were encouraged to extract new knowledge from existing OAI clinical data, longitudinal follow-up data, imaging collections, and related resources.

What types of OAI resources were specifically highlighted?

The FOA highlighted the OAI database, associated clinical datasets, and imaging collections. It also discussed integrating biospecimens with clinical and imaging information for biomarker-related work.

What kinds of scientific questions were considered responsive?

Examples of responsive topics included: identifying and validating risk factors for OA onset and progression; integrating biospecimens with clinical and imaging data to discover or validate biochemical markers; analyzing OAI data to evaluate real-world effectiveness of interventions participants may be using; and imaging-centered studies linking MRI-detected changes to later radiographic and clinical outcomes.

Did the FOA encourage research on risk factors for osteoarthritis?

Yes. It encouraged work to identify and validate risk factors for OA onset and progression, including both modifiable factors (such as weight, activity patterns, biomechanics, behaviors, comorbidities, or other potentially changeable exposures) and non-modifiable factors (such as age, sex, genetics, prior injury history, or other fixed characteristics).

Did the FOA include biomarker-focused research?

Yes. A major theme was integrating biospecimens with clinical and imaging information to discover or validate biochemical markers that could detect early disease, predict progression, or distinguish OA subtypes.

Were studies of interventions allowed, even if the dataset was observational?

Yes. The FOA invited studies that analyze OAI data to evaluate the apparent real-world effectiveness of interventions participants may be using in response to OA pain, including biobehavioral approaches, pharmacological treatments, and other strategies, with an emphasis on understanding what appears to help, for whom, and under what conditions.

How important was imaging research under this FOA?

Imaging-focused work was especially prominent. The FOA encouraged studies that use MRI and radiographic images to predict later outcomes and to understand development or worsening of knee OA.

Did the FOA support method development for imaging analysis?

Yes. It welcomed methodological and engineering-oriented proposals to build new, efficient, and highly reproducible tools for analyzing large volumes of MR images and X-rays, including approaches that improve scalability and consistency for diagnosis, quantification of structural change, and monitoring progression across thousands of scans.

Did the FOA encourage research on osteoarthritis as a whole-joint disease?

Yes. It encouraged research on OA trajectory as a whole-joint disease, including how OA affects or is influenced by muscles, ligaments, and bone, and how these relationships might reveal stages or decision points where intervention could meaningfully reduce severity.

Was phenotype or subgroup analysis encouraged?

Yes. The FOA highlighted interest in subset-focused work to identify distinct patient groups (phenotypes) where targeted interventions might be most effective.

What were the CFDA-related activity areas referenced for this opportunity?

The opportunity was associated with CFDA listings tied to complementary and integrative health research (93.213), arthritis and musculoskeletal and skin diseases research (93.846), and aging research (93.866).

Was cost sharing or matching required?

No. The FOA stated there was no cost sharing or matching requirement.

Who was eligible to apply?

Eligibility was broad and included many types of domestic and international applicants. Eligible organizations included public and private institutions of higher education; nonprofits (including 501(c)(3) and non-501(c)(3) entities); for-profit organizations (including small businesses); and multiple levels of government entities (state, county, city/township, special districts). Public housing authorities/Indian housing authorities were also eligible.

Were tribal governments and tribal organizations eligible?

Yes. Tribal governments (federally recognized and other than federally recognized) and tribal organizations were eligible, along with independent school districts.

Did the FOA explicitly include minority-serving and special-designation institutions?

Yes. It explicitly included institution types commonly referenced in NIH eligibility language, including HBCUs, Hispanic-serving institutions, tribally controlled colleges and universities, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian serving institutions, and AANAPISI institutions.

Could foreign organizations apply?

Yes. The FOA permitted foreign organizations and foreign institutions, non-U.S. components of U.S. organizations, and foreign components as allowed under NIH policy.

What kinds of projects did NIH appear to prioritize within OAI-centered work?

Based on the description, NIH prioritized well-justified R01 projects that either (1) produced new scientific findings through rigorous analysis of OAI clinical data, imaging, and/or biospecimens, or (2) created scalable, reproducible analytic methods and tools that enhance the power and usability of OAI resources for OA research, particularly around prediction, progression, and intervention-relevant decision points.

How did NIH frame the value of using OAI resources?

NIH emphasized that OAI had already generated a large and valuable longitudinal body of OA-related information. The FOA was positioned as a targeted invitation to leverage that existing resource rather than recreate similar datasets, helping accelerate discovery and methodological advances.

Who should be contacted for technical issues accessing the announcement?

For technical issues accessing the announcement, NIH directed users to the NIH Office of Extramural Research (OER) webmaster at FBOWebmaster@OD.NIH.GOV.