Overall, 59 scientists and 52 patients and stakeholders participated in phase 2. Each of the 4 lead reviewers was tasked with providing an overall score for their applications before the in-person meeting based on the phase 1 reviews. Lead reviewers had access to the critiques and scores provided by phase 1 reviewers. Because some patient and stakeholder reviewers had little scientific training, they were invited to base their overall score on 3 of the 8 merit criteria: innovation and potential for improvement (criterion 2), patient-centeredness (criterion 4), and patient and stakeholder engagement on the research team (criterion 7). After the initial phase 2 scoring, these reviewers met in person as part of panels composed of 21 reviewers (the 4 from the initial phase plus additional scientist, stakeholder, and patient reviewers identified as described earlier) and led by a chairperson on 18 November 2012. Applications that scored in the top two thirds based on the average of the 4 lead reviewers’ scores in phase 2 before the meeting were discussed in the larger 21-person panels (98 applications). At the meeting, verbal input was provided by the lead scientific reviewers, stakeholder reviewer, and patient reviewer. Lead reviewer scores were made available to all reviewers during the discussion. After discussion, each proposal received a final overall score from the 21 scientific, patient, and stakeholder reviewers on the panels, including revised scores from the 4 lead reviewers. All reviewers in both phases were required to complete a conflicts-of-interest disclosure statement on any financial relationships with health care entities and were required to recuse themselves from reviewing applications or participating in discussions or scoring in the case of actual or perceived financial, professional, or personal associations with an applicant or an applicant's institution.