NIH Innovates engagement report
@NIH_Innovates - 1.0M followers on X
Measured over 25 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on October 25, 2026.
Engagement
A typical post picks up 8 interactions against 1.0M followers, an engagement rate of 0.001%. Measured over 25 original posts, its engagement rate beats 10% of 20,444 tracked accounts of a similar size. That is a reason to look at how the audience behaves - reply depth, saves, whether the followers are recent - rather than a conclusion about it on its own. Posts are seen about 2.1K times each, and 0.373% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 0.208% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 0.93 post a day over the last 30 days, with activity on roughly 57% of days. Most posts go out around 19:00 UTC, and Wednesday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 25 posts sampled, 88% carry an image or video and 100% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 69 interactions, about 8.6x its own typical post.
Measured over 25 original posts from a 30-day window, last computed on October 25, 2026.
Compared with accounts its own size
NIH Innovates's engagement rate beats 10% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (20,444 accounts, accounts of similar size (decile 10 of 10)). A percentile is spread evenly by construction, so 50 really is the middle of that group and 90 really is its top tenth.
On engagement per impression rather than per follower it beats 25% of the same group. When those two numbers disagree, the gap is about how far its posts travel rather than how people react to them.
Where this sits in the catalog
At 0.001%, NIH Innovates sits below the 10th percentile of the 204,880 accounts in this comparison. That places it in the bottom 25% band, which runs below 0.024%.
Show the percentile table
| Percentile | Engagement rate |
|---|---|
| 10th percentile | 0.004% |
| 25th percentile | 0.024% |
| 50th percentile | 0.143% |
| 75th percentile | 0.678% |
| 90th percentile | 2.55% |
| 99th percentile | 82.4% |
This ruler is the whole measured catalog, not a size-matched group: it shows where the raw rate falls across every account we can measure, all of which are large. For a like-for-like comparison, read the size-band percentile above instead. See how the bands are built
Posting timing
This account posts most often around 19:00 UTC, and Wednesday is its busiest day of the week. The bars below are the catalog-wide pattern, with this account's own busiest slot marked. They do not show how this account performs at each hour: we keep one aggregate per account, not one per hour, so that measurement does not exist in our data.
Show engagement by hour posted, utc as a table
| Hour (UTC) | Vs author median | Posts |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00 UTC | -1% | 89K |
| 01:00 UTC | -2% | 90K |
| 02:00 UTC | -3% | 88K |
| 03:00 UTC | -4% | 94K |
| 04:00 UTC | -5% | 76K |
| 05:00 UTC | -4% | 75K |
| 06:00 UTC | -5% | 86K |
| 07:00 UTC | -5% | 93K |
| 08:00 UTC | -4% | 108K |
| 09:00 UTC | -4% | 124K |
| 10:00 UTC | -3% | 129K |
| 11:00 UTC | -3% | 141K |
| 12:00 UTC | -3% | 154K |
| 13:00 UTC | -3% | 167K |
| 14:00 UTC | -4% | 173K |
| 15:00 UTC | -2% | 176K |
| 16:00 UTC | -3% | 171K |
| 17:00 UTC | -3% | 159K |
| 18:00 UTC | -2% | 149K |
| 19:00 UTC | -2% | 141K |
| 20:00 UTC | -1% | 131K |
| 21:00 UTC | 0% | 116K |
| 22:00 UTC | -2% | 100K |
| 23:00 UTC | -1% | 90K |
Show engagement by day of week as a table
| Day | Vs author median | Posts |
|---|---|---|
| Sunday | +5% | 393K |
| Monday | +1% | 483K |
| Tuesday | -2% | 520K |
| Wednesday | -3% | 472K |
| Thursday | -2% | 430K |
| Friday | -3% | 447K |
| Saturday | +2% | 393K |
Formats this account uses
Its own posting mix on the left, and what each of those formats does across every account we track on the right. Only formats where the effect clears our publish test appear here, so an empty row is a format we could not measure rather than one that does nothing.
| Format | This account | Catalog effect | 95% interval | Accounts behind it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image or video | 88% of posts | +111% | +108% to +115% | 34K |
| Outbound link | 100% of posts | -41% | -42% to -40% | 32K |
| Typical length | - | +15% | +14% to +16% | 32K |
- 88% of this account's sampled posts carry an image or video. Across the catalog, posts with an image or video run 111% above the same accounts' other posts.
- 100% of its posts carry a link off X. Across the catalog, posts with an outbound link run 41% below the same accounts' other posts, so a large share of this account's output sits in the weakest bucket we measure.
- Its average post runs 394 characters, which falls in the over 280 characters band. Across the catalog, posts over 280 characters run 15% above the same accounts' other posts.
These are catalog-wide differences applied to this account's own posting mix, not a measurement of how each format performs for this account specifically. We keep one median per account, not one per format per account, so the second thing is not something this data can tell you.
Best tweets
- Aug 24, 20268.6x their median
🔬NIH-funded researchers engineered an enzyme that can reverse a common type of protein damage which can cause immune system and other problems as people get older. These results suggest this damage might one day be repaired within the body to help treat age-related disorders. Read the full paper ➡️ https://t.co/Syqy6DpUxZ
- Oct 1, 20268.5x their median
Myth: early stage investigators (ESIs) are more likely to receive NIH funding by pursuing a smaller award such as an R21 over an R01-equivalent. ❌ The data reinforce an important point for ESIs: a smaller or shorter award does not necessarily mean an easier award. Among those who applied, ESIs had relatively strong funding rates for R01-equivalent awards, while funding rates for R21s were consistently lower than for R01-equivalents. 📈 https://t.co/vfC67tONSv
- Sep 8, 20267.9x their median
🔬 NIH and the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) support fundamental research in math and statistics to address questions in the biological and biomedical sciences. Applications should be sent to the NSF Program Solicitation NSF 22-600, “Joint DMS/NIGMS Initiative to Support Research at the Interface of the Biological and Mathematical Sciences,” between Sept. 1 and Sept. 18 annually. Key priorities of this endeavor include, but are not limited to: • Replication and reproducibility of research. • Artificial intelligence and data-driven biomedical research. • Alternative testing models. Learn more about the application and review process ▶️ https://t.co/AJm0WAgtqN
- Aug 19, 20267.9x their median
New science. Same cohort. The HEALthy Brain and Child Development (HBCD) Study 2.1 Data Release delivers updated longitudinal data from 3,500+ participants, new data elements, and fixes to known issues. Researchers: request secure access to HBCD data through the NIH Brain Development Cohorts (NBDC) Data Hub at https://t.co/EdeFeYJVmt.
- Aug 12, 20267.6x their median
National Cancer Institute Director Dr. Anthony Letai outlines what grant applicants proposing studies with animal models should address, beginning on the October 5, 2026, deadline—including the rationale for animal use and a path to human-model validation. Read the new post on NCI’s Bottom Line, a blog about grants and more: https://t.co/6JxdTcXtGb
- Oct 7, 20267.5x their median
Are you an early career researcher? The Early Career Reviewer (ECR) Program is made for you! Serving on NIH review panels provides valuable insight and first-hand experience with peer review, which can help participants write stronger grant applications and navigate the NIH funding process more effectively. Learn more ➡️ https://t.co/JlIb7LZBVe
- Oct 2, 20265.8x their median
🔬 More than 20 NIH Institutes & Centers just outlined top research priorities for All of Us Research biospecimens! 1️⃣ Explore the 20+ ICO scientific priority areas 2️⃣ Apply for NIH funding + companion X01 biospecimen access 3️⃣ Publish during a dedicated embargo, after which data enriches the entire research ecosystem Find your fit ⬇️ https://t.co/S6bfyDjp3a
- Aug 8, 20265.0x their median
NIH-supported researchers validated a standardized tool that measures functional vision, how children with cerebral/cortical visual impairment (CVI) use their vision in everyday life. The study found the assessment is reliable, valid, and sensitive enough to detect changes over time. These advances could help researchers evaluate whether new treatments improve children's ability to navigate daily activities -- not just their clinical vision test results. Learn more: https://t.co/vwkVi1NDxG
- Sep 3, 20264.9x their median
A promising NIH innovation could help transform how liver cancer is diagnosed and treated. New fully human antibodies, B9 and B10, selectively target liver cancer cells, support immune attack against tumors, and may enable a range of advanced therapies, including ADCs, CAR therapies, bispecific antibodies, and radiopharmaceuticals. Beyond liver cancer, the technology may have potential applications in prostate and lung cancer treatment and diagnosis. Available for licensing and collaboration: https://t.co/TXiIyUap8c
- Jul 28, 20264.9x their median
New study results provide the first direct evidence that certain molecules secreted from brown fat can regulate the metabolism of other organs. The findings could inform strategies to counter the effects of obesity and aging. Read more: https://t.co/PLSJkc89SK
Ranked by total interactions across everything we have tracked for this account, which is a longer history than the 30-day window the rates above use. The multiple compares each post to this account's own median.
Buy or sell Twitter (X) accounts - escrow-protected
PlayerSells is an escrow marketplace for Twitter (X) accounts. Every deal is protected, with no middleman risk.
Reading these numbers
A typical post picks up 8 interactions against 1.0M followers, an engagement rate of 0.001%. Measured over 25 original posts, its engagement rate beats 10% of 20,444 tracked accounts of a similar size. That is a reason to look at how the audience behaves - reply depth, saves, whether the followers are recent - rather than a conclusion about it on its own. Posts are seen about 2.1K times each, and 0.373% of those impressions turn into an interaction. That is about 0.208% of the follower count, which is the gap between an audience on paper and an audience in a timeline. Posting runs at about 0.93 post a day over the last 30 days, with activity on roughly 57% of days. Most posts go out around 19:00 UTC, and Wednesday is the busiest day of the week. Of the 25 posts sampled, 88% carry an image or video and 100% link out. The account's strongest tracked post pulled 69 interactions, about 8.6x its own typical post.
- What is NIH Innovates's engagement rate on X?
- NIH Innovates (@NIH_Innovates) has an engagement rate of 0.001%, based on the median interactions across 25 original posts from the last 30 days against 1,030,656 followers. Replies, reposts and quote-posts of other people are excluded from that sample.
- Is that a good engagement rate?
- At 0.001%, NIH Innovates sits below the 10th percentile of the 204,880 accounts in this comparison. Those comparison accounts are all large ones, because our scanning cadence is weighted towards big accounts, so this is a ranking among peers of similar scale rather than a ranking across X.
- Does @NIH_Innovates have real engagement?
- Its engagement rate beats 10% of the tracked X accounts closest to it in follower count (20,444 accounts), which puts it in the bottom quarter for its size group. Ranking inside a size band matters because engagement rate falls as accounts grow, so a raw rate would mostly re-measure the follower count. It is a starting point for a look at follower quality, not a verdict on it.
- When does @NIH_Innovates post?
- Most posts go out around 19:00 UTC, and Wednesday is its busiest day, at roughly 0.93 posts per day across the measured window.