Any Md/Phd radiologists in here?

[Garrison1]

If so, what did you do your PhD in, and what are some typical areas for Phds that med students looking to go into radiology do?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Docxter]

If so, what did you do your PhD in, and what are some typical areas for Phds that med students looking to go into radiology do?

Almost anything.

Biosciences, pure science, and engineering are most typical. But I've seen radiologists with PhD's in music, linguistics, etc.

 

[bosky]

Diffusion MRI research (Neuroscience PhD) - agree with above - molecular imaging is the new vogue and you can get into that from many fields.

 

[Neuronix]

I'm working on my PhD now. I do what could be called "molecular imaging" for my thesis as a part of our Biophysics program. I'm pretty much convinced I'm heading into Rads.

 

[Obedeli]

Some programs don't even look at MD/PhD candidates. I know of several who simply toss them in the trash. You better hope research and academics is your longtime desire because strong research programs will be the only ones most likely to be impressed. Don't do it, just to get in.

 

[Garrison1]

Some programs don't even look at MD/PhD candidates. I know of several who simply toss them in the trash. You better hope research and academics is your longtime desire because strong research programs will be the only ones most likely to be impressed. Don't do it, just to get to get in.

Why don't they look at md/phd candidates?

 

[Docxter]

Why don't they look at md/phd candidates?

Because there is this perception (which although I have a PhD myself, I believe is partly true), particularly at community programs that MD/PhD's may be clinically weaker and "less interested" in patient care and clinical medicine.

The way I look at it is that there are two groups of MD/PhD's:

The first group are those that are so involved with or focused on their research, lab work, experiments, and getting grants that they care little about learning clinical medicine, providing high level of care for patients, and are less motivated to work hard clinically. Many of them may do good research, but despite being in a residency, they may not give much of a damn as far as their clinical work is concerned. Many people wouldn't want them as their clinical colleague and would not want to share a call pool or clinical service with these type of MD/PhDs. They are simply considered clinically weak, both in terms of clinical knowledge and clinical work ethic. Some will become a "trouble resident" for the program and the faculty or other services will complain about them, etc, etc. After residency though, many of them will climb the academic ladder quite fast, because of their research and also by the way of how they screw everyone else's schedules and clinical life, because unfortunately, good clinical work is not really rewarded in academia in this day and age

The second group are those who do their PhD work, many with very good research, but in their med school clinical years and residency, are very focused on learning clinical medicine, providing high level of care, and work very hard clinically as well. They are clinically strong, care a lot about their patients and colleagues, and have great clinical knowledge and talent. People would love to have them in their call pool, share a service, and they simply have a high clinical work ethic. They are the real "cream of the crop" in medicine.

Many residencies would not want the first type of MD/PhD candidate at all, especially the programs that are smaller or not really into a lot of research. Every program would love to have the second type and that is why MD/PhDs have an advantage in many programs. Larger programs can afford to take the first type candidate because they get diluted among a larger pool and their research focus may be quite desirable. The problem is that it's hard for programs to sort out the two types during the selection process, and therefore some programs simply view MD/PhDs with a healthy dose of suspicion.

 

[Obedeli]

Because there is this perception (which although I have a PhD myself, I believe is partly true), particularly at community programs that MD/PhD's may be clinically weaker and "less interested" in patient care and clinical medicine.

The way I look at it is that there are two groups of MD/PhD's:

The first group are those that are so involved with or focused on their research, lab work, experiments, and getting grants that they care little about learning clinical medicine, providing high level of care for patients, and are less motivated to work hard clinically. Many of them may do good research, but despite being in a residency, they may not give much of a damn as far as their clinical work is concerned. Many people wouldn't want them as their clinical colleague and would not want to share a call pool or clinical service with these type of MD/PhDs. They are simply considered clinically weak, both in terms of clinical knowledge and clinical work ethic. Some will become a "trouble resident" for the program and the faculty or other services will complain about them, etc. After residency though, many of them will climb the academic ladder quite fast, because of their research and a little by the way they screw everyone else's schedules and clinical life, because unfortunately, good clinical work is not really rewarded in academia in this day and age

The second group are those who do their PhD work, many with very good research, but in their med school clinical years and residency, are very focused on learning clinical medicine, providing high level of care, and work very hard clinically as well. They are clinically strong, care a lot about their patients and colleagues, and have great clinical knowledge and talent. People would love to have them in their call pool, share a service, and they simply have a high clinical work ethic. They are the real "cream of the crop" in medicine.

Many residencies would not want the first type of MD/PhD candidate at all, especially the programs that are smaller or not really into a lot of research. Every program would love to have the second type and that is why MD/PhDs have an advantage in many programs. Larger programs can afford to take the first type candidate because they get diluted among a larger pool and their research focus may be quite desirable. The problem is that it's hard for programs to sort out the two types during the selection process, and some programs simply view MD/PhDs with some healthy dose of suspicion.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Neuronix]

This reminds me of my own life and the lives of MD/PhDs I see in Radiology.

On the PhD side you get to hear--You're not a real PhD. You're a medical student. Why are you wasting your time? You'll just be doing clinical research or private practice anyways. You need 100% of your time to do real research. Who would want a doctor who only spends some of their time in the clinics? Then why the heck do a MD/PhD other than to get a job? What a waste of time.

BTW, be very careful not to make us feel like you are in any way saying that MDs will make more money or have better job prospects than PhDs. You'd have to be crazy to turn down all the ridiculous MD money we perceive you to make someday regardless what you end up doing, and we're all nervous about getting funding/a job in our own lives so don't mention anything about future job prospects on either side. If we think you are saying in any way that MDs are better than PhDs, we will crucify you.

On the MD side you get to hear--You make life difficult for everyone else because you don't pull your weight as a clinician. In fact, you aren't even a real clinician. We spend 100% of our times being clinicians, so 20% of your time won't cut it. Maybe we'll give you a little time for research. We won't give you startup funding or resources. In fact, we'll eat into all that protected time we promised you. Don't complain about it, because you're messing up everyone's schedules. You researchers are such blood suckers, eating into our department bonus to try to get resources to do your experiments to try to bring in that shrinking grant money. Then, when you aren't successful doing research (we never expected you to be), you can generate lots of revenue like you should have been to begin with.

BTW, if we think you are saying in any way that PhDs are better than MDs, we will crucify you.

I guess the only way to please everyone is to train at 110% as a medical student and train 110% as a researcher and by the time you're done putting in your 220% through medical school, PhD, and residency, if you're not burned out you can have no hair, a divorce, and some kids you never see. Or you can just take it easy, but then you'll never get your MD/PhD and everyone's going to hate you because you're good at nothing. Then when it's time to find a job you can put in 200% of full-time so you can do both!

I just to know wanted you to know what you're getting into there op 😉 I'm convinced at this point it's fine to get both degrees but it seems to me like you should never tell anyone you have or are working on both except your boss. I'm not nearly this cynical however. You do have to expect that everyone's egos are high and people are going to pee on you along the way--i.e. Obdeli's post which had nothing to do with your question and instead tried to discourage you. Why even say "Don't do it, just to get in" if you're not assuming it of the op? What sillyness IMO. He never said he was. Of all the things to bring up out of the blue...

Of course it's not always like this of course and you have to have some faith that what you're doing is worthwhile, you just can't please everyone all the time.

Fortunately, when it comes to residency you pretty much never hear of MD/PhDs not matching. I've seen the AOA, high board scores, many publications who didn't do anything related to imaging match at top places and then I've seen an MD/PhD who was low in his class with low board scores and no first author pubs in his PhD match okay. The programs that don't want us have nothing to offer us. The academic programs that do pick MD/PhDs are the places we want to be at. Unfortunately, some stress is caused because they're the same places that everyone else seems to want to be at, but the 3 MD/PhDs who matched from my program this year seem to think you'll be just fine.

 

[Obedeli]

You do have to expect that everyone's egos are high and people are going to pee on you along the way--i.e. Obdeli's post which had nothing to do with your question and instead tried to discourage you. Why even say "Don't do it, just to get in" if you're not assuming it of the op? What sillyness IMO. He never said he was. Of all the things to bring up out of the blue...

Touchy touchy 😀

Look, I just know that plenty of early year medical students and even pre meds peruse these boards looking for that leg up on the competition. All I am saying is don't think that PhD attached to your title is going to make your match a breeze in radiology. This isn't intuitive. Heck, while interviewing for medical school most people if not everybody (including me) played the "I am interested in research" to at least some degree. We all think it helps in getting in the door and for medical school admission, it does! After literally seeing PhD apps getting tossed into the trash at a medium tier state program (not necessarily my own), I thought "Holy Crap!" I wonder how many of these people thought their PhD would smooth the road for them, yet it did just the opposite.

 

[Neuronix]

Touchy touchy 😀

Alright yeah I'm a little touchy about it 😉

I wonder how many of these people thought their PhD would smooth the road for them, yet it did just the opposite.

I hope it does quite honestly. I didn't do MD/PhD because I wanted to get a residency easier. I didn't even know I wanted to do Radiology until I rotated in a MR lab and did some time in clinics. But that being said, since I'm spending an extra 3-4 years getting a PhD in MR and have a serious interest in becoming an academic Radiologist... Yeah, I hope it does smooth the road for me a bit. If the big name academic Radiology programs are serious about producing academic radiologists, here we are. I could probably match in Radiology without the PhD, but I really want to match to the big name places. Why? I don't care about the name. I'm serious about academics. The big name places are big name because they have strong academics.

But still, I haven't seen anyone have problems matching. The two I've seen with decent med school credentials and PhDs in imaging really think they've gotten their choices of programs. So I do still think it's smoother.

 

[nutcancer]

md phds are a creature unto t hemselvs. to do 3-4 years of research in the middle of med school is completely unnatural to me. you guys must all have genuine interest in advancing science and helping mankind. i just want to get my degree, do rads, and do private practice

 

[Garrison1]

I posted my story in another forum, but I'll breifly do it again here in hopes of some advice. I applied this year md only and might not get in although i have a very high gpa and a very high mcat. I think my interviewers sensed a lack of enthusiasm to deal with patients all the time. I want to reapply md/phd because I think it's a better match for my career goals. I got interested in radiology when I worked with a medical imaging group. Also I majored in physics and took a lot of high level math. I want to work on the development of imaging technology, but I also want to have a connection to patients and work on the integration of the science into clinical practice. Do you guys think it will be useful for me to get both degrees or just get one?

 

[Obedeli]

Alright yeah I'm a little touchy about it 😉



I hope it does quite honestly. I didn't do MD/PhD because I wanted to get a residency easier. I didn't even know I wanted to do Radiology until I rotated in a MR lab and did some time in clinics. But that being said, since I'm spending an extra 3-4 years getting a PhD in MR and have a serious interest in becoming an academic Radiologist... Yeah, I hope it does smooth the road for me a bit. If the big name academic Radiology programs are serious about producing academic radiologists, here we are. I could probably match in Radiology without the PhD, but I really want to match to the big name places. Why? I don't care about the name. I'm serious about academics. The big name places are big name because they have strong academics.

But still, I haven't seen anyone have problems matching. The two I've seen with decent med school credentials and PhDs in imaging really think they've gotten their choices of programs. So I do still think it's smoother.

It sounds like you are on the best road for you and for bigger name places, it can certainly help.

 

[Neuronix]

I think your reasoning is pretty solid personally 👍. Just remember you will have to do alot of non-Radiology, non-Physics stuff along the way in medical school and then internship. Much of it will enrich your knowledge for working with patients and coming up with good technology or experiments. Some of it probably won't do either of these, so you have to bear with medical school sometimes. Meanwhile, the PhD just kind of drags on sometimes, and even though I'm only halfway through I wish I was done.

In any case, are you excited about doing both an MD and a PhD? I started doing this because I didn't feel like I wanted to choose just one. I would say with specialties like Pathology and Radiology, as well as research tracks in medicine it's sad that admissions committees want everyone to pretend to be as touchy feely and "I love people" as possible before starting medical school, even if it's not real. If you can't get real excited about the PhD, try to get involved in more volunteer stuff and reapply MD. Very few of the med students continue on with such things, and I'm convinced more than 90% of them only pretended to like working with patients so much they wanted to volunteer/shadow/etc. It's all a gimmick to get in.

 

[MacGyver]

On the whole, MD/PHDs have better match statistics, and thats a fact. The top name programs like Hopkins, Harvard, etc have 97-100% FIRST CHOICE MATCH RATES for many years in a row. Thats certainly not true of the Hopkins/Harvard regular MD classes.

 

[Obedeli]

On the whole, MD/PHDs have better match statistics, and thats a fact. The top name programs like Hopkins, Harvard, etc have 97-100% FIRST CHOICE MATCH RATES for many years in a row. Thats certainly not true of the Hopkins/Harvard regular MD classes.

Sure... if you want a residency in any of those places. 😉

I didn't.

 

[Garrison1]

I think your reasoning is pretty solid personally 👍. Just remember you will have to do alot of non-Radiology, non-Physics stuff along the way in medical school and then internship. Much of it will enrich your knowledge for working with patients and coming up with good technology or experiments. Some of it probably won't do either of these, so you have to bear with medical school sometimes. Meanwhile, the PhD just kind of drags on sometimes, and even though I'm only halfway through I wish I was done.

In any case, are you excited about doing both an MD and a PhD? I started doing this because I didn't feel like I wanted to choose just one. I would say with specialties like Pathology and Radiology, as well as research tracks in medicine it's sad that admissions committees want everyone to pretend to be as touchy feely and "I love people" as possible before starting medical school, even if it's not real. If you can't get real excited about the PhD, try to get involved in more volunteer stuff and reapply MD. Very few of the med students continue on with such things, and I'm convinced more than 90% of them only pretended to like working with patients so much they wanted to volunteer/shadow/etc. It's all a gimmick to get in.

I am excited about doing both degrees because I think the skills I have can best be utilized with both degrees. I agree with what you are saying about the "save the world" type attitude md admissions looks for. I went through the app process without BS'ing all that kind of stuff and it probably is the reason I haven't gotten in yet.