赢得资助申请：说服评审员的 AI 插图技术

Research significance diagram for NIH grant proposal on cancer immunotherapy resistance
mechanisms, 16:9 landscape format suitable for proposal document, designed to
communicate knowledge gap to interdisciplinary review panel including oncologists,
immunologists, and computational biologists.

Visual metaphor: Knowledge landscape shown as completed puzzle with prominent missing
pieces representing research gaps.

Left section (30%): "Current Knowledge - Well Established" - Completed puzzle area
in blue-green tones showing three interconnected domains:
- Upper puzzle section labeled "Checkpoint Inhibitors: Clinical Success" with icons
  showing PD-1/PD-L1 blockade, citation callout "3 FDA approvals (2015-2018)",
  patient response rates shown.
- Middle puzzle section labeled "T-Cell Exhaustion Mechanisms" with molecular pathway
  icons, citation "Wherry et al. 2015, Nature", established understanding.
- Lower puzzle section labeled "Tumor Microenvironment Immunosuppression" with cellular
  components illustrated, citations to foundational work.

Center section (40%): "Critical Knowledge Gap" - Missing puzzle pieces shown as
outlined spaces in orange-red gradient, creating visual tension:
- Large central missing piece labeled "UNKNOWN: Why 60% of Patients Don't Respond?"
  with question mark icon, statistical emphasis "Primary Resistance Mechanisms Unclear".
- Smaller connected gap labeled "Limited Predictive Biomarkers" showing incomplete
  connections between existing knowledge.
- Third gap labeled "Heterogeneity Not Understood" with cellular variation icons.
- Visual emphasis through glow effect, arrows pointing to gaps from existing knowledge,
  reviewer attention naturally drawn to center.

Right section (30%): "Our Proposed Contribution" - New puzzle pieces ready to fill
gaps, shown in purple-gold gradient suggesting innovation:
- Matching piece shape for central gap labeled "Novel Approach: Single-Cell Multi-omics
  of Resistant Tumors", with icons showing genomics + transcriptomics + proteomics
  integration.
- Innovation callouts: "First comprehensive resistance atlas", "Multi-modal integration",
  "Spatial resolution".
- Anticipated outcome shown as completed area labeled "Predictive Resistance Signatures",
  with pathway from discovery to clinical application shown as arrow labeled "Translate
  to Precision Medicine".

Bottom timeline ribbon: Horizontal arrow showing "2015: Checkpoint Inhibitors Approved
→ 2018: Resistance Problem Recognized → 2024: Gap Remains → 2025-2029: Our Project
→ 2030: Clinical Translation", positioning proposal in historical context.

Top banner: Clear statement "Research Significance: Addressing Primary Resistance
to Cancer Immunotherapy", establishing focus immediately.

Color coding: Blue-green (established knowledge = solid foundation), orange-red
(gaps = urgency/opportunity), purple-gold (your contribution = innovation/value).
Clean professional academic style suitable for NIH formatting, high-quality diagram
similar to Nature Reviews illustrations, clear labeling in Arial font (12-14pt),
citable references integrated, reviewer-friendly visual hierarchy.

Methodology flowchart for NSF research proposal on climate change impacts on coral
reef resilience, 16:9 landscape format for proposal body, designed to demonstrate
rigorous 5-year research plan to ecology and climate science review panel.

Overall structure: Three parallel vertical swimlanes representing three research Aims,
connected by horizontal integration points, flowing top to bottom across 5 project
years.

Left swimlane (33%): "Aim 1: Field Monitoring & Sampling" in blue header.
Year 1: Site selection showing map with 12 reef locations across Pacific thermal
gradient labeled "12 Sites × 3 Replicates = 36 Reef Plots", sampling design icon
showing stratification.
Year 2-3: Quarterly monitoring cycles illustrated as circular repeated process,
measurements listed "Temperature, pH, Coral Cover, Biodiversity", sample collection
shown "n=1440 coral cores", quality control note "10% sampling redundancy".
Year 4-5: Long-term trend analysis, statistical validation icon, data archiving to
public repository labeled "Open Data Deposition".

Center swimlane (33%): "Aim 2: Experimental Manipulation" in green header.
Year 1: Mesocosm facility establishment, experimental design matrix showing 4
temperature × 3 pH × 3 coral species = 36 treatment combinations, power analysis
callout "n=5 replicate tanks/treatment, 80% power".
Year 2-3: Stress experiments illustrated with tank icons, physiological measurements
listed "Photosynthesis, Calcification, Gene Expression", quality control showing
blind randomization and equipment calibration protocols.
Year 3-4: Recovery experiments, resilience metrics assessed, data integration with
Aim 1 field observations shown as connecting arrow.

Right swimlane (33%): "Aim 3: Predictive Modeling" in purple header.
Year 1-2: Data compilation from Aims 1-2 shown as input arrows, database development,
preliminary model framework based on existing literature (citations shown).
Year 3-4: Machine learning model development illustrated with algorithm icons,
validation against held-out field data shown as feedback loop, model selection
criteria decision point "If RMSE < 0.15 → Proceed; Else → Refine features".
Year 5: Projection scenarios for 2050/2100 climate conditions, uncertainty
quantification shown, stakeholder communication products illustrated (maps, reports).

Horizontal integration points: Three connection layers across swimlanes labeled
"Data Integration Checkpoints" at Years 2, 3, and 5, showing how Aims inform each
other, team meetings scheduled, go/no-go decision criteria noted.

Right margin timeline: Vertical arrow showing Years 1-5 with milestones: "Year 1:
Permits & Setup", "Year 2: Data Collection Begins", "Year 3: Integration Analysis",
"Year 4: Model Validation", "Year 5: Synthesis & Dissemination".

Innovation callouts: Orange starburst icons highlighting "Novel: Multi-stressor
Mesocosm Design", "Innovation: Combining Observational + Experimental + Modeling",
"Advance: Scalable Prediction Framework".

Rigor indicators: Green checkmark icons showing "Randomization", "Blinding", "Pre-
registration", "Open Data", "Reproducible Code", building reviewer confidence.

Risk mitigation boxes: Yellow caution icons with contingency plans "If coral mortality
>50% → Expand sampling to resistant species", "If model accuracy low → Incorporate
additional environmental variables".

Color scheme: Blue (field work), green (experiments), purple (modeling), orange
(innovation), yellow (risk management), creating clear visual distinction. Professional
NSF proposal style, Arial font labels (11-12pt), suitable for 1-page methodology
overview or expanded detail version, similar to successful ecology proposals.

Expected outcomes visualization for NIH translational research grant proposal on
Alzheimer's early detection biomarkers, 16:9 landscape format showing progression
from research activities to clinical impact, designed for translational neuroscience
review panel.

Overall structure: Left-to-right flow showing transformation from inputs through
immediate outputs to long-term impacts, using pathway metaphor with expanding reach.

Far left (15%): "Research Activities (Years 1-5)" input section showing project
components:
- Icon: Laboratory with researchers, labeled "Multi-Center Cohort Study"
- Sample size: "n=2000 participants" with diversity notation
- Assays listed: "CSF proteomics, Blood metabolomics, MRI imaging"
- Investment shown: "$2.5M NIH Funding"

Left-center (25%): "Immediate Outputs (Years 3-5)" showing direct project deliverables:
Top track - Scientific outputs:
- Publications: Stack of papers labeled "8-12 peer-reviewed papers", target journals
  "Nature Medicine, Lancet Neurology, Alzheimer's & Dementia"
- Data sharing: Database icon labeled "Open-access biomarker database, 500+ proteins
  profiled", NIH data repository compliance shown
- Presentations: Conference podium labeled "15+ conference presentations, invited
  symposia"

Bottom track - Capacity building:
- Training: Graduation cap icons labeled "4 PhD students, 2 postdocs trained in
  translational neuroscience"
- Methods: Protocol book labeled "Validated multi-omics pipeline, SOPs published"
- Infrastructure: Lab equipment labeled "Shared resource established"

Center (30%): "Near-Term Outcomes (Years 5-7)" showing research impact:
Top track - Scientific advancement:
- Discovery: Lightbulb icon with labeled "Novel Biomarker Panel: 5-protein signature
  for preclinical Alzheimer's detection", specificity/sensitivity metrics shown
  "Predicted: 85% sensitivity, 90% specificity, 10-year advance warning"
- Validation: Checkmark with "Independent cohort validation (n=500)", building
  credibility
- Mechanism: Pathway diagram labeled "Mechanistic insights into early neurodegeneration"

Bottom track - Translation initiation:
- Patent: Document icon labeled "Provisional patent filed on diagnostic panel"
- Clinical trial: Hospital icon labeled "Phase I clinical validation trial initiated"
- Partnerships: Handshake icon labeled "Industry collaboration for assay development
  (Roche, Quest Diagnostics potential)"

Right-center (20%): "Medium-Term Impacts (Years 7-10)" showing broader reach:
- Clinical tool: Medical device icon labeled "FDA-approved diagnostic test", regulatory
  pathway shown
- Clinical adoption: Hospital network labeled "Test adopted in 200+ memory clinics",
  patient access expanding
- Practice change: Guidelines document labeled "Updated screening guidelines, primary
  care integration"
- Economic: Dollar signs labeled "Cost savings: early intervention vs. late-stage care"

Far right (10%): "Long-Term Vision (10+ years)" showing transformative potential:
- Population health: Large group of people icons labeled "Routine screening for at-risk
  populations (50+ million in US)"
- Disease prevention: Shield icon labeled "Preventive interventions, disease burden
  reduction"
- Healthcare transformation: Building labeled "Paradigm shift: Alzheimer's prevention
  vs. treatment"

Connecting arrows: Flow showing logical progression, with annotations "If biomarkers
validated →", "Subject to FDA approval →", "Pending clinical efficacy →", acknowledging
contingencies.

Metrics boxes: Quantifiable targets shown at each stage - "12 publications", "85%
sensitivity", "200 clinics", "50M people", making outcomes concrete.

Bottom ribbon: Broader impacts highlighted - "Reduced healthcare costs: $200B annually",
"Improved quality of life for millions", "US leadership in neuroscience translation",
addressing NIH mission.

Color progression: Dark blue (inputs/activities) → teal (outputs) → green (near-term
outcomes) → light green (medium impacts) → gold (transformative vision), showing
expanding value and societal reach. Professional grant proposal style, optimistic
but realistic tone, similar to successful NIH translation proposals, clear timeline
annotations, appropriate confidence level avoiding guarantees.

Team structure and collaboration network diagram for NIH multi-site collaborative
research grant on health disparities, 16:9 landscape format showing organizational
structure and expertise complementarity, designed for review panel assessing team
synergy and institutional commitment.

Top tier - Leadership structure:
Center circle: Multiple-PI Leadership team shown as three connected nodes in gold
gradient:
- Left node: "PI 1: Dr. Sarah Chen (Johns Hopkins)" with photo placeholder, expertise
  tags "Epidemiology, Community Engagement, Health Disparities", NIH R01 track record
  shown "5 R01s as PI"
- Center node: "PI 2: Dr. Marcus Johnson (Howard University)" with photo placeholder,
  expertise "Cardiovascular Disease, Clinical Trials, HBCU Leadership", collaboration
  history with PI 1 shown "10 prior publications together"
- Right node: "PI 3: Dr. Alicia Rodriguez (UCLA)" with photo placeholder, expertise
  "Biostatistics, Causal Inference, Big Data", complementary quantitative skills

Leadership coordination: Monthly PI meetings, shared decision authority, conflict
resolution protocol noted.

Second tier - Co-Investigators by research Aim:
Three colored clusters below PI team:

Left cluster (blue): "Aim 1 Team: Community Assessment" - 4 Co-Is
- Co-I: Dr. James Williams (Morehouse), Community-Based Participatory Research, local
  partnerships established
- Co-I: Dr. Linda Park (Johns Hopkins), Qualitative Methods, interview expertise
- Co-I: Dr. Robert Garcia (UCSF), Geographic Information Systems, spatial analysis
- Coordinator: Maria Santos, MPH, community health worker liaison
Aim 1 meetings: Bi-weekly virtual, quarterly in-person, community advisory board
engagement shown.

Center cluster (green): "Aim 2 Team: Clinical Study" - 5 Co-Is
- Co-I: Dr. Jennifer Lee (Howard Hospital), Cardiology, clinical site PI, patient
  recruitment "access to 5000+ patient cohort"
- Co-I: Dr. David Martinez (UCLA Medical Center), Cardiology, clinical site PI, West
  Coast recruitment
- Co-I: Dr. Karen Thompson (Hopkins), Clinical Coordinator, regulatory compliance
- Co-I: Dr. Ahmed Hassan (Wayne State), Interventional Cardiology, procedure expertise
- Nurse Coordinator: Patricia Brown, RN, multi-site coordination
Clinical coordination: Weekly team meetings, monthly safety monitoring, IRB oversight
structure.

Right cluster (purple): "Aim 3 Team: Data Analysis & Modeling" - 4 Co-Is
- Co-I: Dr. Rachel Kim (UCLA), Biostatistics Core Director, analysis plan leadership
- Co-I: Dr. Thomas Zhang (Hopkins), Machine Learning, predictive modeling
- Co-I: Dr. Sophia Patel (Emory), Health Economics, cost-effectiveness analysis
- Data Manager: Kevin O'Brien, MS, database management, quality control
Analysis meetings: Monthly, pre-specified analysis milestones, reproducibility
protocols.

Third tier - Consultants and External Collaborators:
Outer ring showing specialized expertise brought in as needed:
- Consultant: Dr. Elizabeth White (CDC), Public Health Policy, dissemination advisor,
  2 days/year commitment
- Consultant: Dr. Michael Brown (FDA), Regulatory Science, device approval pathway,
  1 day/year
- International Collaborator: Dr. Carlos Mendez (Universidad Nacional, Colombia),
  Global Health Disparities, comparison cohort, no salary support, in-kind contribution
- Industry Partner: HeartTech Solutions, Technology Transfer, prototype development,
  matching funds committed "$50K equipment donation"

Bottom tier - Training and Development:
Trainee layer showing career development integrated into project:
- 6 PhD students (2 per Aim) represented with graduation cap icons, diversity noted
  "50% underrepresented minorities"
- 3 Postdoctoral fellows shown with early career researcher icons, mentorship structure
  indicated
- 4 Summer undergraduate researchers from minority-serving institutions, pipeline
  development highlighted

Right side box - Institutional Support:
Three university logos (Johns Hopkins, Howard, UCLA) with commitment letters noted:
- Johns Hopkins: "25% PI effort committed, $100K cost-sharing, laboratory space"
- Howard: "CTSA pilot funding, recruitment support, community relationships"
- UCLA: "Biostatistics Core access, $75K cost-sharing, data storage infrastructure"

Communication infrastructure overlay:
Connecting lines showing coordination mechanisms:
- Executive Committee: 3 PIs + 3 Aim leaders, quarterly strategic planning
- Steering Committee: All Co-Is, semi-annual full team meetings
- External Advisory Board: 5 national experts, annual review, independence shown
- Data Safety Monitoring Board: Independent oversight, patient safety, required for
  clinical trial

Color coding: Gold (leadership), blue/green/purple (Aim teams), gray (consultants),
light blue (trainees), creating clear organizational hierarchy. Professional NIH
multi-PI proposal style, photos (or initials in circles), institution logos, clear
reporting lines, expertise tags in small text (9-10pt), demonstrates team synergy,
complementary skills, strong infrastructure, appropriate for complex collaborative
research application.

Budget justification visualization for European Research Council (ERC) Advanced Grant
proposal, 16:9 landscape format showing 5-year budget allocation and cost-activity
relationships, designed to demonstrate efficient resource use for €2.5M project.

Top section (30%): "Total Budget Overview" - Financial summary at-a-glance
Left: Total funding request shown as large number "€2,500,000" with ERC logo, 5-year
project duration noted, breakdown by year shown as stacked bar chart:
- Year 1: €400K (startup intensive)
- Year 2: €550K (peak recruitment/data collection)
- Year 3: €550K (continued data collection)
- Year 4: €500K (analysis phase)
- Year 5: €500K (synthesis and dissemination)
Bars color-coded by major category.

Right: Budget distribution pie chart showing percentage allocation across categories:
- Personnel: 65% (€1,625K) in blue - largest slice, appropriate for research project
- Equipment: 15% (€375K) in green - significant capital investment justified
- Consumables: 10% (€250K) in orange - experimental supplies
- Travel: 5% (€125K) in purple - conferences, collaborations
- Other costs: 5% (€125K) in gray - publication fees, software licenses
Clear legend with both percentages and absolute amounts.

Middle section (40%): "Cost-Activity Linkage Matrix" - Showing how budget supports
research aims

Three-column layout connecting Aims → Resources → Justification:

Left column - Research Aims:
- Aim 1: "High-throughput phenotyping of 5000 genetic variants" (Years 1-3)
- Aim 2: "Mechanistic characterization of top 50 hits" (Years 2-4)
- Aim 3: "Therapeutic target validation in animal models" (Years 3-5)

Center column - Required Resources (with costs):
For Aim 1:
- Personnel: 2 PhD students (€240K), 1 technician (€180K), total €420K
- Equipment: Automated liquid handler (€200K), high-content imaging system (€150K),
  total €350K
- Consumables: Cell culture supplies, reagents (€150K)
Flow arrows connecting Aim 1 to these resources.

For Aim 2:
- Personnel: 1 Postdoc specialist (€220K), 1 PhD student (€120K), total €340K
- Equipment: Protein analysis suite (€25K, cost-shared with Aim 1 equipment)
- Consumables: Biochemical assays, proteomics (€70K)
Flow arrows connecting Aim 2 to these resources.

For Aim 3:
- Personnel: 1 Postdoc (€220K), animal facility staff time (€80K), total €300K
- Equipment: In vivo imaging system (€50K, institutional cost-share contributes €50K)
- Consumables: Animal costs, compounds (€80K)
Flow arrows connecting Aim 3 to these resources.

Right column - Justification callouts:
- "PhD students: 3-year contracts standard, includes stipend + bench fees"
- "Automated system: Essential for 5000-variant throughput, vendor quotes obtained"
- "Animal facility: University core provides 50% discount, cost-sharing agreement"
- "Reagent costs: Based on pilot data, 10% contingency included"

Bottom section (30%): "Personnel Effort Allocation Timeline"
Gantt-style chart showing when team members are funded:
Horizontal time axis: Years 1-5 subdivided by quarters

Personnel rows:
- PI (30% effort throughout): Continuous bar across all 5 years in dark blue,
  "€200K total, consistent leadership"
- Postdoc A (100% effort Years 2-5): Bar starting Year 2, "€220K, Aim 2 specialist"
- Postdoc B (100% effort Years 3-5): Bar starting Year 3, "€220K, Aim 3 lead"
- PhD Student 1 (100%, Years 1-4): Bar Years 1-4, "€160K, Aim 1 focus, graduation
  Year 4"
- PhD Student 2 (100%, Years 1-4): Bar Years 1-4, "€160K, Aim 1 support, graduation
  Year 4"
- PhD Student 3 (100%, Years 2-5): Bar Years 2-5, "€120K, Aim 2 support"
- Lab Technician (100%, Years 1-5): Continuous bar, "€180K, general lab support"

Timeline aligned with major milestones shown above personnel chart: "Equipment
Installation (Q1 Y1)", "Pilot Complete (Q4 Y1)", "Aim 1 Data Collection (Y2-Y3)",
"Validation Experiments (Y4)", "Synthesis (Y5)", showing temporal logic of spending.

Right sidebar: Cost-sharing and Institutional Support shown as green boxes:
- "University contribution: €300K equipment match"
- "In-kind: Core facility access valued €150K"
- "Total project value: €2.95M (€2.5M requested + €450K institutional)"
Demonstrating institutional commitment and cost-sharing enhancing competitiveness.

Footer note: "All personnel costs include statutory benefits. Equipment quotes from
vendors (letters attached). Consumable estimates based on 2-year pilot study costs
inflated 3% annually. Complies with ERC budget regulations."

Color scheme: Blue (personnel, largest category), green (equipment, capital investment),
orange (consumables, operational), purple (travel, networking), gray (other),
consistent with pie chart. Professional ERC grant style, clean sans-serif fonts,
clear visual hierarchy, suitable for proposal appendix or budget justification
section, demonstrates thoughtful financial planning and resource efficiency.