Diff. between Number of research experiences and number of Abstracts/presentations and pubs (NRMP).

[BeaHero]

Hi everyone, I have a question about the difference between the mean number of research experiences and the mean number of abstracts, presentations, and publications on the NRMP's Charting Outcomes in the match book. What is the difference between the two?

I attached a screenshot of what I am having trouble understand if that helps.

Thank you so much for your help!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[chronicidal]

Hi everyone I have a question about the difference between the mean number of research experiences and the mean number of abstracts, presentations, and publications on the NRMP's Charting Outcomes in the match book. What is the difference between the two?

I attached a screenshot of what I am having trouble understand if that helps.

Thank you so much for your help!

One explanation: A research experience does not necessarily result in an abstract, presentation, or publication. A research experience can result in multiple abstracts, presentations, and/or publications. Most abstracts, presentations, and publications result from research experiences, but not all.

Another explanation: The NRMP surveys applicants prior to Match Day, who are asked to recall the number of research experiences and the number of abstracts, presentations, and publications they listed on their residency application. The difference is therefore however the respondents interpret the question.

 

[BeaHero]

One explanation: A research experience does not necessarily result in an abstract, presentation, or publication. A research experience can result in multiple abstracts, presentations, and/or publications. Most abstracts, presentations, and publications result from research experiences, but not all.

Another explanation: The NRMP surveys applicants prior to Match Day, who are asked to recall the number of research experiences and the number of abstracts, presentations, and publications they listed on their residency application. The difference is therefore however the respondents interpret the question.

I see. It would be interesting to know how programs look at a applicant with 1 research experience and 6+ pubs/abstracts/presentations compared to an applicant with 6+ research experiences and 1 publication.

Both examples are a little extreme, I know. Lol.

 

[235009]

One research experience resulting in multiple abstracts/publications is pretty common I would think. You typically have one mentor who you work with throughout your tenure. Whether it's med school or residency.

 

[Wordead]

I see. It would be interesting to know how programs look at a applicant with 1 research experience and 6+ pubs/abstracts/presentations compared to an applicant with 6+ research experiences and 1 publication.

Both examples are a little extreme, I know. Lol.

An applicant with 6 experiences and 1 pub is probably useless unless thats some incredible pub

 

[BeaHero]

An applicant with 6 experiences and 1 pub is probably useless unless thats some incredible pub

That makes sense.

I have one more question - Let's say I have a research experience that produced an abstract, presentation, and manuscript. Would you count this as 1, or would it be "3" in the number of manuscripts, abstracts, and presentations.

 

[operaman]

My understanding was that these distinctions arose from how charting outcomes data was originally pulled directly from raw ERAS data. In ERAS, there's a separate heading for research "experiences" and "abs/Pres/pubs." The research experiences were basically free response where you would describe the experience and list the faculty mentor, etc. The actual pubs/Pres section had you I out the requisite bibliographic data for your publication or presentation. The charting outcomes data was extracted from these numbers with all the "experiences" aggregated into one data point and the pubs and presentations into another.

Since charting outcomes is now solely through nrmp, these numbers are derived from surveys of applicants.

Honestly, I think these numbers are fairly worthless other than to very broadly show which fields are more likely to require research to be a successful applicant. The fact that it doesn't even distinguish between pubs and presentations and abstracts says a lot as these represent very different levels of accompishement.

 

[chronicidal]

My understanding was that these distinctions arose from how charting outcomes data was originally pulled directly from raw ERAS data. In ERAS, there's a separate heading for research "experiences" and "abs/Pres/pubs." The research experiences were basically free response where you would describe the experience and list the faculty mentor, etc. The actual pubs/Pres section had you I out the requisite bibliographic data for your publication or presentation. The charting outcomes data was extracted from these numbers with all the "experiences" aggregated into one data point and the pubs and presentations into another.

Since charting outcomes is now solely through nrmp, these numbers are derived from surveys of applicants.

Honestly, I think these numbers are fairly worthless other than to very broadly show which fields are more likely to require research to be a successful applicant. The fact that it doesn't even distinguish between pubs and presentations and abstracts says a lot as these represent very different levels of accompishement.

Would it add significant information to Charting Outcomes if the NRMP split the questions into pubs vs. presentations/abstracts?

 

[PanzerTank00]

.

 

[operaman]

Would it add significant information to Charting Outcomes if the NRMP split the questions into pubs vs. presentations/abstracts?

I think it might. There are many avenues to rack up abstracts and presentations even with very little actual research, while publications in peer reviewed journals are more difficult to get and generally require some sort of finished product. Personally, I wish they would also separate them out by authorship and date of publication as well.

As noted above, it takes only seconds for a knowledgable reader to look at a CV and have a sense of just what kind of work they are doing. The current CO data doesn't tell us if the average of 10 abs/Pres/pubs among matched applicants is half undergrad stuff, a handful of school research days, a state meeting, and one Nth author pub, or whether it's half first author pubs, a couple nth authors, and some national meetings. Two very different applicants!

Where more thorough Charting Outcomes data would help is with students considering competitive fields. As it is, they have to rely on the advice of mentors and previous applicants -- not a terrible thing, but a more in depth look at the national data set could be very helpful when it comes to deciding whether to pursue a research year or even whether to apply at all.