Charting Outcomes of the Match (2022)

[Ho0v-man]

I was almost certain that I was at a disadvantage for competitive specialties because I only have a couple of pubs as an incoming M1. I see so many students who have double digits pubs before med school because their [insert relative here] is the head of [insert specialty here] at a top name hospital. Any chance I can DM you?

Bro I’m a pgy-2 with one poster presentation on my CV. And that was done during intern year. It’s fine.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[operaman]

This is extremely unusual

Very true.

Though funny story - my M4 year there was a poster on the ent discussion board who would announce interview offers as they came out and dude got like literally every single offer from every top program out there. I thought I was doing well with my 80% hit rate but this dude was just crushing it. Didn’t matter what coast, what tier - dude was cleaning up it seemed.

Come to find out later he was an MD-PhD and his dad was chair of a big ent program. Plus he was an awesome dude too. Ended up actually doing fellowship with his dad too which I think must have been pretty cool - what an awesome experience and memory to have.

So yes rare but it does happen! It’s not in charting outcomes, but I think it’s safe to say if your dad is a leader in the field, your odds of matching are good.

 

[Lawpy]

Very true.

Though funny story - my M4 year there was a poster on the ent discussion board who would announce interview offers as they came out and dude got like literally every single offer from every top program out there. I thought I was doing well with my 80% hit rate but this dude was just crushing it. Didn’t matter what coast, what tier - dude was cleaning up it seemed.

Come to find out later he was an MD-PhD and his dad was chair of a big ent program. Plus he was an awesome dude too. Ended up actually doing fellowship with his dad too which I think must have been pretty cool - what an awesome experience and memory to have.

So yes rare but it does happen! It’s not in charting outcomes, but I think it’s safe to say if your dad is a leader in the field, your odds of matching are good.

That’s more believable than the “so many students with double digit pubs before med school” that @someonerandom claims to know.

 

[operaman]

That’s more believable than the “so many students with double digit pubs before med school” that @someonerandom claims to know.

Yeah I don’t know how many pubs he had but I’m sure it was a lot given the PhD.

There was one other dude my year who was also MD-PhD and had been doing ent research at a high level literally since freshman year of college. He would have likely been one of those double digit pre meds and then added quite a few more double digits in the years after. I think he was over 60 when applying to residency and is well over 100 now. Just a beast of an academic surgeon and really chill nice guy too. We applied to fellowship in the same subspecialty and when people asked me where I wanted to match I would always say “whichever place that dude doesn’t rank number 1!”

But those are the only two I know! Thankfully quite rare.

 

[Browns99]

Bro I’m a pgy-2 with one poster presentation on my CV. And that was done during intern year. It’s fine.

Yea, but that doesn't mean that applicants going for a competitive speciality won't need research.....maybe the rest of your app was strong, maybe it wasn't, I don't know. The point is that the applicants are becoming more and more competitive with strong step scores, letters, etc, so research is becoming a necessary if for nothing more then checking the box. So, while I see no problem in you sharing your story, don't let it be taken as, look, I have one poster and I matched, you don't need any research....not going to cut it.

Now, if you are referring to research, pre-med, that's another story and I agree, you don't need that unless your med school app is weak.

 

[someonerandom]

Lol you think having double digit pubs before med school is common?

This is extremely unusual

Bro I’m a pgy-2 with one poster presentation on my CV. And that was done during intern year. It’s fine.

That’s more believable than the “so many students with double digit pubs before med school” that @someonerandom claims to know.

Thanks for the replies, that's very reassuring. I guess by "many students" I meant only a couple from my undergrad university. I'm from a non-T20, private research university so I assumed the overall amount would be many when factoring in all the top-tier undergrad institutions. 😂

 

[Lawpy]

Thanks for the replies, that's very reassuring. I guess by "many students" I meant only a couple from my undergrad university. I'm from a non-T20, private research university so I assumed the overall amount would be many when factoring in all the top-tier undergrad institutions. 😂

That is still a lot imo. Double digit papers are rare even from a surgery perspective so to get that at an undergrad level is still mind boggling

 

[Ho0v-man]

Yea, but that doesn't mean that applicants going for a competitive speciality won't need research.....maybe the rest of your app was strong, maybe it wasn't, I don't know. The point is that the applicants are becoming more and more competitive with strong step scores, letters, etc, so research is becoming a necessary if for nothing more then checking the box. So, while I see no problem in you sharing your story, don't let it be taken as, look, I have one poster and I matched, you don't need any research....not going to cut it.

Now, if you are referring to research, pre-med, that's another story and I agree, you don't need that unless your med school app is weak.

Allow me to clarify. I meant to convey that not having research as a premed is nbd. That person is not automatically behind.

 

[Browns99]

Allow me to clarify. I meant to convey that not having research as a premed is nbd. That person is not automatically behind.

Yes, I agree.

 

[GoSpursGo]

Question about interpreting this chart... Should I be looking at the absolute numbers of pubs in these specialties, or is it the difference between matched/unmatched that's meaningful? For example, a large difference in the number of pubs between matched and unmatched in neurosurgery means that having publications is likely important for matching into neurosurgery, but in pediatrics, where they're essentially the same number, having research isn't important?

Just to answer this question from a couple of pages back, I think both the absolute number and the difference convey different information. A higher absolute number lets you know just home competitive a specialty is (i.e. everyone who is applying generally has a higher number of pubs to even consider themselves competitive), while a larger difference in the two columns tells you how important research may be in that field.

Keep in mind that chart is quite flawed, as it lumps all abstracts and posters in with full peer-reviewed publications, so if someone takes the same poster around to 3 different school research days and maybe a regional meeting, that "counts" the same in that chart as someone with 4 full papers. Clearly a PD reviewing applications would recognize the difference in the research output between those two students.

Finally, I generally wouldn't sweat research for specialties with a high match rate unless you're wanting to go to a "top" program and potentially stay in academic medicine. Specifically, you can match peds (and some really solid programs too) even if you have zero research

 

[FindersFee5]

I've given some of my peers practically this same advice. Even if you have no desire to do research, just try it out. Check the box. Learn the process. Produce a result and showcase that you can be a valuable member contributing to an end-goal with other professionals already in the field of interest. If you still don't like research, then at least you can say you've done it and don't have the palate for it. Or it could drastically change one's future goals and projection for their career as a physician.

I worked under a couple of highly revered docs in their respective fields prior to med school. One was a MD/PhD who everyone in their field knows and developed some paradigm-shifting advancements. The other didn't have a PhD, but developed a passion for clinical research and has 100+ quality pubs and some major NIH grants that basically fund their fields of interest that they investigate on the side of their clinical work.

To bring this more back on-topic, the research numbers for some of the ultra-competitive fields is getting insane. Quality should be weighed much more than quantity, and it may very well be by some(or most) PDs, but sadly we don't really have a way of seeing that in the charting outcomes data. If there were a way to parse that out, it could drastically reduce the amount of BS research being cranked out if people could only see that quality wins out over quantity. Oh well, c'est la vie.

I agree. That’s why they should focus on first authorship.. I went through the process twice with mid level journals in ophtho as a first author. They can be quite demanding and require a strong work ethic to push them through the finish line.

I think part of the issue is that we partially treat the application as a CV, but a CV that has a number of artificial constraints (step scores, letters of recommendation, rotation grades, MSPE, etc). I think the solution might be moving AWAY from this "comprehensive" CV view that ends up obscuring data rather than revealing anything new. Something I've been thinking about for a fix: what if, instead of listing ALL research experiences, applicants put their personal 5 most important pieces of research material on their app? This could include papers, posters, or even experiences with no publication - I have >10 papers published but one of my top 5 experiences would definitely be a basic science project that I worked on for 1.5 years but only had a single poster presentation to show for it. Despite this seeming lack of results, I think the things we discovered with this project were more interesting than most of my other research, and the amount of work that went into was also far greater.

I also think ~5 is a good sweet spot number-wise. It would be enough that a strong applicant can showcase their best work (and having 5 projects that are all strong would definitely stand out, even among the increasingly competitive marketplace), while not being such an overwhelming number that people would be forced into churning out fluff. A limited number also allows more thorough review by programs when evaluating applications.

 

[Wordead]

Very true.

Though funny story - my M4 year there was a poster on the ent discussion board who would announce interview offers as they came out and dude got like literally every single offer from every top program out there. I thought I was doing well with my 80% hit rate but this dude was just crushing it. Didn’t matter what coast, what tier - dude was cleaning up it seemed.

Come to find out later he was an MD-PhD and his dad was chair of a big ent program. Plus he was an awesome dude too. Ended up actually doing fellowship with his dad too which I think must have been pretty cool - what an awesome experience and memory to have.

So yes rare but it does happen! It’s not in charting outcomes, but I think it’s safe to say if your dad is a leader in the field, your odds of matching are good.

Hah I know exactly who you're talking about. I remember being extremely salty about it during interview season. It just seemed so unfair to have an otology legend as your dad. He did seem like a very nice humble guy though.

 

[NegativeMargin]

I think part of the issue is that we partially treat the application as a CV, but a CV that has a number of artificial constraints (step scores, letters of recommendation, rotation grades, MSPE, etc). I think the solution might be moving AWAY from this "comprehensive" CV view that ends up obscuring data rather than revealing anything new. Something I've been thinking about for a fix: what if, instead of listing ALL research experiences, applicants put their personal 5 most important pieces of research material on their app? This could include papers, posters, or even experiences with no publication - I have >10 papers published but one of my top 5 experiences would definitely be a basic science project that I worked on for 1.5 years but only had a single poster presentation to show for it. Despite this seeming lack of results, I think the things we discovered with this project were more interesting than most of my other research, and the amount of work that went into was also far greater.

I also think ~5 is a good sweet spot number-wise. It would be enough that a strong applicant can showcase their best work (and having 5 projects that are all strong would definitely stand out, even among the increasingly competitive marketplace), while not being such an overwhelming number that people would be forced into churning out fluff. A limited number also allows more thorough review by programs when evaluating applications.

Mean number of abstracts, presentations, and publications are already separated from Mean number of research experiences. And the average for that is around that 5 figure that you're after, at least for people who match into competitive things like neuro surgery, ortho, etc. Won't that and the experience section of the application cover the most important experiences? Please educate me where I'm wrong.

The person reviewing the apps compares the impact of someone pushing out half a dozen posters and presentations with no publications to someone with more national conference attendance and publications in a high-impact journals, and that is reflected in the Charting Outcomes as unmatched people on average show slightly higher numbers for research overall, correct? Properly distinguishing between research opportunities that are more likely to result in high impacts in the field seems to be paramount if that's what people are after.. but from what I've gathered we don't know how to do that. We might do a quick search to see if the people in charge get research out frequently and where, but at that point we just shoot our shot and the end-result statistically is at least partially affected by where we ended getting into medical school to begin with and what projects happen to be available at the time.

There's an issue of clarity for people viewing this from the outside in that doesn't necessarily carry-over to people actually reviewing applicants, it seems. Again, correct me where I'm wrong. The fear that it might perpetuate runaway selection leading to skewed outcomes is a fear for us students, but we still are just taking the opportunities that we can get. I'm barely an M1 and I'm able to parse why the Charting Outcomes could be better but are more than good enough as a rough estimate, certainly everyone who's future currently depends on it for matching and who's job it is to select residents is more educated than I am. In these sorts of threads, people on average are at least toying with conflating the issues with the charting outcomes with issues of actually selecting the best candidates. I'm not saying you are, I'd certainly love to be shown where I'm wrong from someone actually involved in the process.

 

[ABigChunguss]

Hey all, question about the field of research:
Let's say I do plenty of decent quality research during M1-2 in some random field. But during M3 clerkships, I become interested in a competitive specialty like ortho (after all, aren't clerkships for exploring the different fields/specialties to find what suits you?). Would my previous research that was productive but not ortho-related be useful for getting into an ortho residency without doing a gap year? Along the same lines, if everything else was the same, would a program necessarily prefer the person with 10 specialty-specific research items compared to someone with 10 research items in many different areas? Thanks for any input

 

[ABigChunguss]

Also, separate questions about type of research:
1. Is there a ranking of what kind of research is preferred? For example, assuming same journal impact factor, would basic science be better than observational/retrospective studies, which would be better than case reports? Since basic science would generally require way more effort than the others, and statistical data analyses are generally more effort than case write-ups.
2. If Person A has 10 research items that are all original research articles or systematic reviews/meta-analyses; and Person B has 15 research items with 5 of them being original research/reviews and the rest conference abstracts/presentations. With everything else being the same, would B be preferred over A?
3. Does authorship matter? Would a 4th author high-impact publication be better than 1st author low-impact?
4. Can research beyond the traditional basic/clinical science count? For example, I'm really interested in doing quality improvement projects, but I understand this is not the traditional mould of research. So would it count just as much as basic/clinical projects?
Thanks again in advance.

 

[GoSpursGo]

Hey all, question about the field of research:
Let's say I do plenty of decent quality research during M1-2 in some random field. But during M3 clerkships, I become interested in a competitive specialty like ortho (after all, aren't clerkships for exploring the different fields/specialties to find what suits you?). Would my previous research that was productive but not ortho-related be useful for getting into an ortho residency without doing a gap year? Along the same lines, if everything else was the same, would a program necessarily prefer the person with 10 specialty-specific research items compared to someone with 10 research items in many different areas? Thanks for any input

Any research is helpful, but for uber-competitive specialties you need specialty-specific research. There is no way around this--it doesn't ALL have to be in the competitive specialty, but you're going to need SOME of it to be in your field of interest. In your hypothetical, assuming that the quality of the research is equal, they will absolutely prefer the person where all pubs were specialty-specific.

 

[GoSpursGo]

Also, separate questions about type of research:
1. Is there a ranking of what kind of research is preferred? For example, assuming same journal impact factor, would basic science be better than observational/retrospective studies, which would be better than case reports? Since basic science would generally require way more effort than the others, and statistical data analyses are generally more effort than case write-ups.
2. If Person A has 10 research items that are all original research articles or systematic reviews/meta-analyses; and Person B has 15 research items with 5 of them being original research/reviews and the rest conference abstracts/presentations. With everything else being the same, would B be preferred over A?
3. Does authorship matter? Would a 4th author high-impact publication be better than 1st author low-impact?
4. Can research beyond the traditional basic/clinical science count? For example, I'm really interested in doing quality improvement projects, but I understand this is not the traditional mould of research. So would it count just as much as basic/clinical projects?
Thanks again in advance.

1) It's all on a spectrum and depends on the quality of the research. Yes, it is known that basic science requires more effort, but A) most physicians aren't doing basic science research, and B) doing basic science is inherently risky as you may never publish.
2) A>B. This is where Charting Outcomes does not do a good job of reflecting how people reviewing apps actually view CVs. This is also a pretty irrelevant hypothetical, as nobody is going to have 10 original research articles and no abstracts/posters.
3) Authorship matters. Your hypothetical depends on just how high impact and low-impact we are talking.
4) It will count if you can publish. QI work is generally hard to publish though.

Rather than tying yourself in knots over hypotheticals, just find good research that you're interested in. If you do that and work hard things will work out.

 

[ABigChunguss]

Any research is helpful, but for uber-competitive specialties you need specialty-specific research. There is no way around this--it doesn't ALL have to be in the competitive specialty, but you're going to need SOME of it to be in your field of interest. In your hypothetical, assuming that the quality of the research is equal, they will absolutely prefer the person where all pubs were specialty-specific.

I see, so if I only figure out my ideal specialty in the middle of M3, what would be my recourse apart from a gap year? It sounds like if you're interested in something competitive, you should ideally have your specialty picked M1/early-M2; but then you don't come across the specialty until some point in M3. I guess shadowing would help in M1/2 but I don't see how that would give any different value from pre-med shadowing; it'd help you see the lifestyle aspect but still not whether you'd like the medical aspect.

 

[GoSpursGo]

I see, so if I only figure out my ideal specialty in the middle of M3, what would be my recourse apart from a gap year? It sounds like if you're interested in something competitive, you should ideally have your specialty picked M1/early-M2; but then you don't come across the specialty until some point in M3. I guess shadowing would help in M1/2 but I don't see how that would give any different value from pre-med shadowing; it'd help you see the lifestyle aspect but still not whether you'd like the medical aspect.

Indeed, it is a problem. These residency spots are scarce, so if you are late to the party the most common option is to take a research year to get your ducks in a row. Not saying it's fair, but it is the game you have to play, and also nobody is making you apply to a competitive field.

If you think you might be interested in something competitive, definitely you should make contacts during first year and at least get to know some mentors in the field.

 

[Darrow O'Lykos]

I think part of the issue is that we partially treat the application as a CV, but a CV that has a number of artificial constraints (step scores, letters of recommendation, rotation grades, MSPE, etc). I think the solution might be moving AWAY from this "comprehensive" CV view that ends up obscuring data rather than revealing anything new. Something I've been thinking about for a fix: what if, instead of listing ALL research experiences, applicants put their personal 5 most important pieces of research material on their app? This could include papers, posters, or even experiences with no publication - I have >10 papers published but one of my top 5 experiences would definitely be a basic science project that I worked on for 1.5 years but only had a single poster presentation to show for it. Despite this seeming lack of results, I think the things we discovered with this project were more interesting than most of my other research, and the amount of work that went into was also far greater.

I also think ~5 is a good sweet spot number-wise. It would be enough that a strong applicant can showcase their best work (and having 5 projects that are all strong would definitely stand out, even among the increasingly competitive marketplace), while not being such an overwhelming number that people would be forced into churning out fluff. A limited number also allows more thorough review by programs when evaluating applications.

I really like this idea. I feel like it helps trim some fat off the meat of what PDs want to see and what successful student-researchers should be striving to showcase.

What's funny is that this is already done professionally in the field. Doctors' CVs and/or online profiles are often truncated down to show "Select Publications" rather than "All Publications". There'd be some sound logic in applying that rationale to ERAS.

 

[psyspy]

People want to have their cake, and eat it too. This generation is also notoriously spoiled.

I have several classmates who are gung-ho on surgical specialties, but also want to have a chill lifestyle, get 10 hours of sleep, get a stay-at-home husband, find similar female role models who are great mothers/wives, and top of their field in surgery/academia (because they are very rare/nonexistent), etc.

Nothing wrong at all with wanting those things, and I actually think it's terrible the paradigm shift away from motherhood these days, but it's a bit tough to have all those things simultaneously. I was actually about to tell this girl when she said she couldn't find any role models with those things, but then she'd probably spin it off as 'they said I couldn't do it' or whatever so I just realized it's not my place.

I have my own things I want out of life too -- like regular exercise, riding my motorcycles, wrenching on older American muscle cars, racing, dating, etc -- that I'm trying to see how they fit into my future.

Lol are you a millenial male?

 

[psyspy]

Pretty much everyone I know didn't make much significant progress on their summer projects due to factors outside of their control -- I wouldn't worry too much .

if you think everyone is gonna tell the truth about this stuff as early as M1 I've got some bad news

 

[ChordaEpiphany]

Why are medical students (and residents ?) "churning out papers that are essentially garbage?"

These are overwhelmingly abstracts and presentations, and even then I doubt most of those are at major conferences.

I remember reading somewhere on here that average ACTUAL publications for applicants matched to neurosurgery was still less than 1 a couple years ago, though my memory may be a little foggy.

This is extending into residency as well. My GI/Cards friends are submitting case report abstracts everywhere to conferences (most will take anything). Easy poster = a line in your resume

I definitely understand that you gotta play the game. Just wish this kinda stuff wasn’t necessary. 99% of research you do as a resident is fluff

It's quantity over quality, publications for the sake of publications. Even when the med student/resident researchers themselves are fantastic academically, the research is usually poor quality.

As an MD/PhD student I work with surgical residents (at a top, top residency) doing their two research years. These are obviously wildly intelligent people with incredible work ethic, but they're bad researchers almost universally. We have collaborators at a T50 chemistry department, and the PhD students from that program, who have about half the drive of the surgical residents, are uniformly easier to work with simply because they have adequate research training and a longer runway to work out kinks in their projects and research technique.

I've had residents come to me asking for help on stats for experiments they butchered so badly (not by technique, but by actual experimental design) that they wound up with N=1 for every group. I can't even imagine what the research is like when it's residents who spend 80 hours/week clinically trying to put a bow on some project they did in their "spare" time while leaning on a med student to do the grunt work.

Something I've been thinking about for a fix: what if, instead of listing ALL research experiences, applicants put their personal 5 most important pieces of research material on their app? This could include papers, posters, or even experiences with no publication - I have >10 papers published but one of my top 5 experiences would definitely be a basic science project that I worked on for 1.5 years but only had a single poster presentation to show for it. Despite this seeming lack of results, I think the things we discovered with this project were more interesting than most of my other research, and the amount of work that went into was also far greater.

I really like this idea. I feel like it helps trim some fat off the meat of what PDs want to see and what successful student-researchers should be striving to showcase.

What's funny is that this is already done professionally in the field. Doctors' CVs and/or online profiles are often truncated down to show "Select Publications" rather than "All Publications". There'd be some sound logic in applying that rationale to ERAS.

I like this idea. Maybe better would be separate sections for first author pubs, middle author pubs, talks, and posters. That would at least encourage people to try to build up pubs and first authors over random posters.

A good analogy for first vs. middle author pubs is moving apartments. The first author is the one actually moving. The middle authors are the friends who show up for an hour to lug some boxes. Moving takes weeks. You source/buy boxes, pack, disassemble, and organize literally all of your belongings. You organize a moving truck. You scrub the place you're moving out of. You plan the logistics, recruit help, and pay them off with pizza or beer. Then everyone shows up, moves your pre-packed boxes to the truck and then from the truck to your new house. Then they leave and you're left with re-organization, unpacking, re-assembling furniture, buying new furniture and accessories for the new place, etc... Inevitably you will realize there is still stuff left to do at the original place. You'll go back to clean, spackle some nail hole the landlord is complaining about, move that stuff in the shed you forgot, handle cancelling the utilities, etc.... Then, for months after the move, you'll still be doing random little things. The point is, first vs. middle author is a completely different experience. Creating a finished product is so much harder than simply contributing a small piece of one, and often the first author does exponentially more work.

Then, if publishing a manuscript is moving, giving a talk at a conference is more like packing for vacation. In fact, often it's exactly like packing for a vacation...

 

[GoSpursGo]

I think part of the issue is that we partially treat the application as a CV, but a CV that has a number of artificial constraints (step scores, letters of recommendation, rotation grades, MSPE, etc). I think the solution might be moving AWAY from this "comprehensive" CV view that ends up obscuring data rather than revealing anything new. Something I've been thinking about for a fix: what if, instead of listing ALL research experiences, applicants put their personal 5 most important pieces of research material on their app? This could include papers, posters, or even experiences with no publication - I have >10 papers published but one of my top 5 experiences would definitely be a basic science project that I worked on for 1.5 years but only had a single poster presentation to show for it. Despite this seeming lack of results, I think the things we discovered with this project were more interesting than most of my other research, and the amount of work that went into was also far greater.

I also think ~5 is a good sweet spot number-wise. It would be enough that a strong applicant can showcase their best work (and having 5 projects that are all strong would definitely stand out, even among the increasingly competitive marketplace), while not being such an overwhelming number that people would be forced into churning out fluff. A limited number also allows more thorough review by programs when evaluating applications.

Not a bad idea. As another person said, this really is how most academic physicians order their professional CV/biosketch anyways.

That said, again I think med students become overly worried about raw numbers. Numbers are important yes, but PDs will actually look at the research products and be able to tell how many pubs vs. presentations vs. posters you have, and where they were presented. Nobody is really effectively gaming the system by dragging the same poster around to 3 different school-level conferences. And if you get to the actual interview level, I assure you that someone in an interview will ask you what your specific role in the projects were, so you'll either have a chance to shine there or get revealed as someone who really wasn't involved but got put on the paper just cuz.

 

[psyspy]

Not a bad idea. As another person said, this really is how most academic physicians order their professional CV/biosketch anyways.

That said, again I think med students become overly worried about raw numbers. Numbers are important yes, but PDs will actually look at the research products and be able to tell how many pubs vs. presentations vs. posters you have, and where they were presented. Nobody is really effectively gaming the system by dragging the same poster around to 3 different school-level conferences. And if you get to the actual interview level, I assure you that someone in an interview will ask you what your specific role in the projects were, so you'll either have a chance to shine there or get revealed as someone who really wasn't involved but got put on the paper just cuz.

If you have a lot of products they’re not gonna go line by line about each one. The interview would be over by then

 

[GoSpursGo]

If you have a lot of products they’re not gonna go line by line about each one. The interview would be over by then

It really isn't that hard. In the five minutes before the interview, skim and figure out which products are actual pubs vs abstracts (abstracts almost always have some sort of designation that they were printed in a supplement or something like that). From the actual pubs, definitely will ask about anything first-author. If there are still more products, maybe pick one or two at semi-random (or from projects that were obviously higher impact) to ask about contributions on middle author products. Responses to this line of questioning may not give me an exhaustive picture of all of the research contributions that someone has made, but I should get a general gestalt of whether they know what they are talking about and if they could seriously continue contributing going forward.

You're not going to get that treatment in every interview, but if research was obviously a major part of your application then you'll probably get at least one interviewer like me who would make your research the focus of our discussion.

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

I don’t think any MD students are truly doing prospective experimental study. 4 years are simply not long enough for any of those projects. So, everyone is doing chart reviews essentially.

 

[TelemarketingEnigma]

I don’t think any MD students are truly doing prospective experimental study. 4 years are simply not long enough for any of those projects. So, everyone is doing chart reviews essentially.

I never did a single chart review and I published several papers in med school

The realistic answer is that to publish something higher level than a chart review, you’ll likely be working with a team that includes people with more time and experience. There are also experimental studies that can be done on a smaller scale than a full blown RCT. And other types of papers in between and apart from “prospective study” and “chart review”

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

I never did a single chart review and I published several papers in med school

The realistic answer is that to publish something higher level than a chart review, you’ll likely be working with a team that includes people with more time and experience. There are also experimental studies that can be done on a smaller scale than a full blown RCT. And other types of papers in between and apart from “prospective study” and “chart review”

Mid author I guess. You really need first author papers if you want to gun for competitive specialties. For those, the only way you can achieve that without some bs about economics of some medical practice or how many med students get into a specific specialty from which schools is through a decent chart review. Hopefully you only need like 20 patients for the paper. More than that it’s hard to finish, less than that it’s less likely to get accepted.

 

[TelemarketingEnigma]

Mid author I guess. You really need first author papers if you want to gun for competitive specialties. For those, the only way you can achieve that without some bs about economics of some medical practice or how many med students get into a specific specialty from which schools is through a decent chart review. Hopefully you only need like 20 patients for the paper. More than that it’s hard to finish, less than that it’s less likely to get accepted.

There’s also different types of research out there my friend, that’s not all BS. I ended up with a mix of authorship levels but that included first author papers. I did a lot of research that’s a bit outside the box for typical med student work (legal/policy analysis, public health stuff, etc). There can be opportunities to do real good work as a med student, especially if your goal is quality over quantity (for example, I wasn’t gunning for something competitive, so I got to do research I actually cared about).

That said yes, the bigger the project the more mid-author a med student is going to end up being.

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

There’s also different types of research out there my friend, that’s not all BS. I ended up with a mix of authorship levels but that included first author papers. I did a lot of research that’s a bit outside the box for typical med student work (legal/policy analysis, public health stuff, etc). There can be opportunities to do real good work as a med student, especially if your goal is quality over quantity (for example, I wasn’t gunning for something competitive, so I got to do research I actually cared about).

That said yes, the bigger the project the more mid-author a med student is going to end up being.

I was an attorney and also a hedge fund manager before med school. It’s like law students doing research on car accident medical treatment… or divorce related mental issues.

 

[TelemarketingEnigma]

I was an attorney and also a hedge fund manager before med school. So all those health related legal and economic analysis done by med students is so amateurish and garbage. I found that laughable. It’s like law students doing research on car accident medical treatment… or divorce related mental issues… medical people should stay in their lane and do what they are supposed to do well, which is PURELY medicine.

there's a lot of bull**** in many arenas. I'm sorry you feel the need to disbelieve that any med student could ever participate in any good research. I agree plenty of it sucks but some of it is very well done. Fortunately i worked with a great team that included attorneys and ethicists who are very well respected leaders in their field, and served as incredible mentors. Our area of research involved overlap of multiple disciplines, specifically legal policies that affect medical treatments, so it made sense to have an interdisciplinary team doing the work. I hope you can either find good research you enjoy doing, or a career that doesn't require you to touch research since you don't seem to like any of it.

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

there's a lot of bull**** in many arenas. I'm sorry you feel the need to disbelieve that any med student could ever participate in any good research. I agree plenty of it sucks but some of it is very well done. Fortunately i worked with a great team that included attorneys and ethicists who are very well respected leaders in their field, and served as incredible mentors. Our area of research involved overlap of multiple disciplines, specifically legal policies that affect medical treatments, so it made sense to have an interdisciplinary team doing the work. I hope you can either find good research you enjoy doing, or a career that doesn't require you to touch research since you don't seem to like any of it.

I don’t disbelieve med students can produce legitimate papers. But they just can’t produce legitimate policy or legal or economic papers as a first author. In my M1 year, I first authored a lit review and a case series and both are published in mid level journals in ophtho. I found that to be with my knowledge limit as a medical student. However, my classmates keep putting BS out and unfortunately PD’s will more likely reward people with 10 pubs in BS than someone with legit research. I was consulted for several legal analysis papers put out by residents but their quality was so low and I was embarrassed to even have my name on them.. I wrote some papers as a 3L on similar issues… you can imagine the difference… theirs is laughable amateur piece not worth reading at all.

 

[TelemarketingEnigma]

I don’t disbelieve med students can produce legitimate papers. But they just can’t produce legitimate policy or legal or economic papers as a first author. In my M1 year, I first authored a lit review and a case series and both are published in mid level journals in ophtho. I found that to be with my knowledge limit as a medical student. However, my classmates keep putting BS out and unfortunately PD’s will more likely reward people with 10 pubs in BS than someone with legit research.

i could turn this around on you and tell you that you can't publish 1st author ophtho papers as an M1, if you're not an ophthalmologist. I'm not claiming anyone can or should do it on their own. That's what good mentors and research teams are for. I understand your frustration and in many ways share it, but at this same time you're currently coming across as saying "the only legitimate research is mine and everyone else's is bad." You don't know everyone's research or career background - you're not the only med student with a prior career that gave them insight into other fields.

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

i could turn this around on you and tell you that you can't publish 1st author ophtho papers as an M1, if you're not an ophthalmologist. I'm not claiming anyone can or should do it on their own. That's what good mentors and research teams are for. I understand your frustration and in many ways share it, but at this same time you're currently coming across as saying "the only legitimate research is mine and everyone else's is bad." You don't know everyone's research or career background - you're not the only med student with a prior career that gave them insight into other fields.

What I am saying is that med students should really only focus on medical research. If you want to do other research, it’s fine to be assisting. Authoring a real legal analysis as a med student is not plausible. Yet all those journals happily accept those papers.

 

[GoSpursGo]

There’s also different types of research out there my friend, that’s not all BS. I ended up with a mix of authorship levels but that included first author papers. I did a lot of research that’s a bit outside the box for typical med student work (legal/policy analysis, public health stuff, etc). There can be opportunities to do real good work as a med student, especially if your goal is quality over quantity (for example, I wasn’t gunning for something competitive, so I got to do research I actually cared about).

That said yes, the bigger the project the more mid-author a med student is going to end up being.

This is interesting. Could you give examples of the kinds of papers you were able to swing as first author other than chart reviews? What was the process you took to finding these kinds of research opportunities, and is it something that's replicable for the average student?

I have to admit, while not as dismissive as @srirachamayonnaise on the potential quality of the publications, I'd make sure that any student pursuing this strategy actually be fundamentally interested in the research and make sure that you're getting into journals that have legitimate peer review/impact factors. The lines on your CV may get you an interview, but you'd definitely get some pointed questions in an interview about your contributions, what went into writing the publication, your career goals in these atypical research spaces, etc. If you give superficial answers that makes it clear you were trying to game the system to pump out pubs... well that's going to look very bad. If you give really good answers, that could make for one of the best interviews because you won't be like everyone else.

 

[Browns99]

I don’t disbelieve med students can produce legitimate papers. But they just can’t produce legitimate policy or legal or economic papers as a first author. In my M1 year, I first authored a lit review and a case series and both are published in mid level journals in ophtho. I found that to be with my knowledge limit as a medical student. However, my classmates keep putting BS out and unfortunately PD’s will more likely reward people with 10 pubs in BS than someone with legit research. I was consulted for several legal analysis papers put out by residents but their quality was so low and I was embarrassed to even have my name on them.. I wrote some papers as a 3L on similar issues… you can imagine the difference… theirs is laughable amateur piece not worth reading at all.

You should have stayed in law, you seem so jaded, medicine may not be for you.

 

[efle]

You should have stayed in law, you seem so jaded, medicine may not be for you.

Dude have you met modern inpatient doctors. Half of them are toasted to a crisp, especially trainees

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

You should have stayed in law, you seem so jaded, medicine may not be for you.

Well. I know. But I like the subject matter of medicine more than anything else. So if I am to be jaded anyway, at least I will be jaded in something I am interested in.

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

This is interesting. Could you give examples of the kinds of papers you were able to swing as first author other than chart reviews? What was the process you took to finding these kinds of research opportunities, and is it something that's replicable for the average student?

I have to admit, while not as dismissive as @srirachamayonnaise on the potential quality of the publications, I'd make sure that any student pursuing this strategy actually be fundamentally interested in the research and make sure that you're getting into journals that have legitimate peer review/impact factors. The lines on your CV may get you an interview, but you'd definitely get some pointed questions in an interview about your contributions, what went into writing the publication, your career goals in these atypical research spaces, etc. If you give superficial answers that makes it clear you were trying to game the system to pump out pubs... well that's going to look very bad. If you give really good answers, that could make for one of the best interviews because you won't be like everyone else.

The problem with lots of non medical publications in medical journals is that the review process is inherently flawed. Most editors don’t have any background training to review an article about legal consequences of a procedure. Just because you tally the lawsuits in each state, it doesn’t mean one state is more lenient than another in malpractice or whatever. There are so so so so many factors in legal analysis. Evidential burden, res Judi a, damages and etc., all those papers I saw are so ludicrous in their conclusion because they make a statement about a legal matter PURELy based on data…. Any legal expert will tell you that no one talks about chance of one outcome on the percentage basis in law. However, medical people only know this way of expressing their opinion. Number based.

I guess that’s only obvious to people who are trained in both, which aren’t a lot I admit.

 

[TelemarketingEnigma]

This is interesting. Could you give examples of the kinds of papers you were able to swing as first author other than chart reviews? What was the process you took to finding these kinds of research opportunities, and is it something that's replicable for the average student?

I have to admit, while not as dismissive as @srirachamayonnaise on the potential quality of the publications, I'd make sure that any student pursuing this strategy actually be fundamentally interested in the research and make sure that you're getting into journals that have legitimate peer review/impact factors. The lines on your CV may get you an interview, but you'd definitely get some pointed questions in an interview about your contributions, what went into writing the publication, your career goals in these atypical research spaces, etc. If you give superficial answers that makes it clear you were trying to game the system to pump out pubs... well that's going to look very bad. If you give really good answers, that could make for one of the best interviews because you won't be like everyone else.

To be a little vague for privacy sake - One was a large review of international policies/ethical implications surrounding a certain kind of medical testing. I purposely sought out that kind of research due to personal interest and got lucky by being introduced early on to a mentor (JD/ethicist) who needed help with the project. I did work in a related field prior to medical school so I had experience to bring to it already.

The other major first author paper was focused on implementation of a unique student clinic/public health program that i managed. There was a little chart review involved but it was mostly implementation focused. I also did a dual MPH which helped with the public health aspects.

I had some additional second author/middle author papers associated with each of these projects/mentors

I recognize that my exact situation is not transferable to most students, but I feel like especially among my MD/MPH classmates people actually did a lot of interesting research slightly outside the medical box. I get that some people look down on interdisciplinary work but I personally think there’s lots of cool stuff there. Plenty of chart reviews too of course. I totally agree that these other kinds of research are not a good idea for someone just trying to check boxes on a CV, but for students who do have other interests there are opportunities out there

 

[someonerandom]

Very true.

Though funny story - my M4 year there was a poster on the ent discussion board who would announce interview offers as they came out and dude got like literally every single offer from every top program out there. I thought I was doing well with my 80% hit rate but this dude was just crushing it. Didn’t matter what coast, what tier - dude was cleaning up it seemed.

Come to find out later he was an MD-PhD and his dad was chair of a big ent program. Plus he was an awesome dude too. Ended up actually doing fellowship with his dad too which I think must have been pretty cool - what an awesome experience and memory to have.

So yes rare but it does happen! It’s not in charting outcomes, but I think it’s safe to say if your dad is a leader in the field, your odds of matching are good.

I think I know exactly who you are talking about...