An Analysis of Artificial Intelligence Adoption in NIH-Funded Research

Federal research funding shapes the direction, diversity, and impact of the US scientific enterprise. Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly diffusing into scientific practice, holding substantial promise while raising widespread concerns. Despite growing attention to AI use in scientific writing and evaluation, little is known about how the rise of LLMs is reshaping the public funding landscape. Here, we examine LLM involvement at key stages of the federal funding pipeline by combining two complementary data sources: confidential National Science Foundation (NSF) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) proposal submissions from two large US R1 universities, including funded, unfunded, and pending proposals, and the full population of publicly released NSF and NIH awards. We find that LLM use rises sharply beginning in 2023 and exhibits a bimodal distribution, indicating a clear split between minimal and substantive use. Across both private submissions and public awards, higher LLM involvement is consistently associated with lower semantic distinctiveness, positioning projects closer to recently funded work within the same agency. The consequences of this shift are agency-dependent. LLM use is positively associated with proposal success and higher early-stage publication output at NIH, whereas no comparable associations are observed at NSF. Notably, the productivity gains at NIH are concentrated in non-hit papers rather than the most highly cited work. Together, these findings provide large-scale evidence that the rise of LLMs is reshaping how scientific ideas are positioned, selected, and translated into publicly funded research, with implications for portfolio governance, research diversity, and the long-run impact of science.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly employed for decision-support across multiple domains. We ask whether these models favor artificial intelligence (AI) itself. We examine this question through three experiments. First, in open-ended advice across investment, study, career, and startup domains, AI is prominent in most recommendation lists and is usually ranked first when it appears. Second, in salary estimations, models overestimate AI-related jobs more than they do for closely matched non-AI jobs. In a controlled follow-up, changing only the job title from the matched non-AI title to the AI-related title raises predicted salary by 10%, while all other supplied job details remain fixed. Finally, we show that the number of degrees and other credentials awarded by AI programs were 28% more overestimated than corresponding awards for matched computing programs. Overall, we show that AI is not only prominent in everyday LLM advice, but also receives systematically inflated quantitative estimates compared to non-AI cases, even against its closest disciplinary neighbors, raising concerns for high-stakes decision support.

The use and applicability of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical research and clinical practice has received increasing attention in the literature over recent years. The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has expanded discussions in regards to applications of AI within healthcare. While traditional deep learning based AI applications in medicine have often focused on specific and defined tasks, LLMs offer broader capabilities and flexibility in working with available data,. At the same time of writing, the integration of LLMs into medical settings raises important questions regarding their reliability, accuracy, transparency, safety, and appropriate role in a medical setting. This text presents and discusses recent talks and articles concerning the application of LLMs in medicine, with particular emphasis on their potential utility in research and clinical practice. It considers both the opportunities offered by these technologies and the challenges associated with their implementation, aiming to provide a perspective on the current and emerging role of LLMs within the medical field.