Efficient way to get Publications

[libertyyne]

In terms of getting pubs in med school from data mining and retrospective chart reviews, is knowing how to program for data analysis necessary?

Or could you find someone who is proficient in these languages to run the data for you, then you interpret the data/write paper?

Not sure how many med students are proficient in R/python/etc and if this is necessary to get pubs

I would also like to know this since I am falling behind on my python class. I suspect that the retrospective chart reviews and data mining is occurring on relatively small levels where excel might suffice.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[IslandStyle808]

Given the relative sexiness of the topics and thus the volume of people working on them, I would not take that bet.

Very fair point.

 

[Astra]

From what I've read on the forums here, a decent understanding of R is enough for research in med school.

 

[Frogger27]

From what I've read on the forums here, a decent understanding of R is enough for research in med school.

But is it required in order to be a productive researcher in Med school?

 

[Astra]

But is it required in order to be a productive researcher in Med school?

From what I've read, no. But its certainly a leg up.

It's not that hard to learn tbh. You could probably learn it on the fly as you're doing research in med school. There are tons of tutorials to show you how to do the basic things you need.

 

[HybridEarth]

Depends on the kind of data you'll be working with. If you need to pull a massive cohort of 1000s of patients or something, you'd waste way too much time not doing it with R.

 

[mcloaf]

Are we talking 5+ first author research publications during medical school? There is a significant difference between being the primary author of five manuscripts and happening into a productive enough research group that your name ends up somewhere in the author list of 5 papers. Similarly there's a big difference between 5 hypothesis driven research papers and 5 case reports (most wouldn't consider the latter research, but the two are often conflated when getting publications is discussed on these forums).

The only reliable way to get through things fast enough to do this IMO would be if you entered med school with an ability to do statistical analysis yourself (using R/Stata/SAS) and connected with a PI who had access to preexisting datasets (NSQIP or HCUP databases for example). Chart review and database building is worthwhile, but time consuming. Similarly the IRB process can take a while.

 

[MaxPlancker]

The most important thing is to be able to really take ownership of a publish and be able to take part in all the stages of research from conception to dissemination. Whether you get a pub and what sort of pub you get matters far less than the LORs and ability to demonstrate your research prowess in the interview. A lot of people matching into very competitive specialties at the top institutions don't have many pubs, if any and I've talked to people involved in the residency process at top institutions and they stress the most important thing is your experience itself. Pubs etc are a cherry on top. It just so happens that a lot of people who excel in research also end up with pubs (analogy: It's not that schools try to necessarily get the highest scoring applicants or w/e, it just turns out that many applicants good at interviewing, EC's etc have high scores).

told; everything is taken into context. If you do the best you can in your particular setting, you will do great.

 

[WedgeDawg]

Find a lab that consistently puts out publications, consistently has med students on those publications, and is in a field you're interested in. You won't find this at every department at every school, but talk to upperclassmen who did research in the field and see if they can point you towards a lab that fits your criteria. Also, clinical papers are much easier to get out than basic research papers.

 

[Anti-PD1]

Been doing a lot of basic science research at a flagship hospital.

Getting published in Nature is luck AND hard work AND appeasing an audience. The way these big journals are headed, they love newsworthy headlines more than the actual incremental nature of science at times. And I am talking about Nature, not a Nature related journal like Eye.

 

[Anti-PD1]

As for many publications, find a database, ask some questions. Or find someone with a database.

 

[NeuResurgens]

In general it seems the most efficient way is clinical rather than basic science.

 

[gcuddles]

My understanding is that you never really know what your step score is. So you should do basic research or in the specialty you have in mind as step scores a usually released after 2nd or 3rd year. Otherwise you will end up scrambling to get research and letters and building contacts.

Plus you have more time during m1,and m2. Why overburden yourself during m3.

...You get your step score. For those who don't know: Step 1 is the test you traditionally take at the end of your 2nd year. You're required to take it before your 3rd year curriculum starts, and you must have passed in order to continue on with 3rd year. You 100% get your Step score, it takes about 3 weeks to get back to you. Step 1 is cited by PDs as by far the most important parameter for residency; you can have hopes and dreams about what specialty/where you're going before hand but things become much more realistic once you have your Step score in hand.

But the advice still holds: during M1/M2, build your resume towards the most competitive specialty you're interested in. Much easier to explain neurosurg research to an IM director during residency interviews than trying to explain why you did peds clinical research to an ortho PD.

Also remember that a lot of applicants to the highly competitive specialties take a year off to do research, so definitely not the end of the world if you end up changing your mind post-Step.

 

[libertyyne]

...You get your step score. For those who don't know: Step 1 is the test you traditionally take at the end of your 2nd year. You're required to take it before your 3rd year curriculum starts, and you must have passed in order to continue on with 3rd year. You 100% get your Step score, it takes about 3 weeks to get back to you. Step 1 is cited by PDs as by far the most important parameter for residency; you can have hopes and dreams about what specialty/where you're going before hand but things become much more realistic once you have your Step score in hand.

But the advice still holds: during M1/M2, build your resume towards the most competitive specialty you're interested in. Much easier to explain neurosurg research to an IM director during residency interviews than trying to explain why you did peds clinical research to an ortho PD.

Also remember that a lot of applicants to the highly competitive specialties take a year off to do research, so definitely not the end of the world if you end up changing your mind post-Step.

I must have jumbled up the explanation. I meant you dont get your step score in time to make significant progress for research and other activities required to get ready to match into a competitive specialty. Leaving everything up until you get the score would be stressful and disastrous for people who take step at the end of year 3.

 

[Umyo]

Book marked

 

[ProfMD]

Having read through this thread, I have a few comments. My perpective is as one who has done both basic science and clinical projects. Now, as tenured clinical faculty at a med school, I interview residency applicants every year.

First off, the fallacy of impact factor. Remember what impact factor is - it represents how many times papers in that journal are referenced. You can have very good journals in small subspecialities that have lower IFs than mediocre journals in large subspecialities. Rely on you PIs advice as to where to submit. Talk to people in your prospective field and you will quickly get a sense of which journals are the most respected.

Second, quantity vs quality. When I interview residency applicants, I look for several things - where on the author list is the applicant, how many publications are there, and what journals are they in. I would rather see fewer first author pubs than many mid-author list pubs. I would rather see fewer high quality papers than many crummy papers. However, it is ok to have a mix. I look at the pubs list and generate an overall gestalt. One caveat though, if you have a publication (or several), be able to discuss them with your interviewer. Not knowing about the work, even if you are low on the author list, is a big no-no.

Third, the chance of getting a first author basic science publication without taking one or more years off is essentially zero. It does happen, but mostly with luck in landing the right PI and the right project. If you are not going to take a year off, feel feee to spend your summer doing basic science, but plan on getting in the middle of the author list, if you get anything. Without a year off, clinical papers are much higher yield (chart reviews, databases, case series/reports, etc).

 

[Frogger27]

@ProfMD thank you so much for the insightful response!

I am just curious how as a residency director do you view applicants who have less research output in basic science (call it one/two first author pubs) vs an applicant who has a bunch of clinical publications that are majority middle authors?

Also, how do you view applicants who did substantial research in gap years prior to med school? Say an applicant who had two first author papers completed prior/beginning of med school.

 

[Astra]

Having read through this thread, I have a few comments. My perpective is as one who has done both basic science and clinical projects. Now, as tenured clinical faculty at a med school, I interview residency applicants every year.

First off, the fallacy of impact factor. Remember what impact factor is - it represents how many times papers in that journal are referenced. You can have very good journals in small subspecialities that have lower IFs than mediocre journals in large subspecialities. Rely on you PIs advice as to where to submit. Talk to people in your prospective field and you will quickly get a sense of which journals are the most respected.

Second, quantity vs quality. When I interview residency applicants, I look for several things - where on the author list is the applicant, how many publications are there, and what journals are they in. I would rather see fewer first author pubs than many mid-author list pubs. I would rather see fewer high quality papers than many crummy papers. However, it is ok to have a mix. I look at the pubs list and generate an overall gestalt. One caveat though, if you have a publication (or several), be able to discuss them with your interviewer. Not knowing about the work, even if you are low on the author list, is a big no-no.

Third, the chance of getting a first author basic science publication without taking one or more years off is essentially zero. It does happen, but mostly with luck in landing the right PI and the right project. If you are not going to take a year off, feel feee to spend your summer doing basic science, but plan on getting in the middle of the author list, if you get anything. Without a year off, clinical papers are much higher yield (chart reviews, databases, case series/reports, etc).

1. Which specialty do you interview people for?

2. How important are research papers when you are considering candidates?

3. How do you view papers that are not in fields related to your specialty? Do you have a hierarchy for fields of research, ( Derm > Optho > etc)

4.How do you view applicants from MD schools that have little to no research?

5. As a faculty, what tips would you give a student when they search for a PI?

6. What's your favorite beer?

 

[ProfMD]

@ProfMD thank you so much for the insightful response!

I am just curious how as a residency director do you view applicants who have less research output in basic science (call it one/two first author pubs) vs an applicant who has a bunch of clinical publications that are majority middle authors?

Also, how do you view applicants who did substantial research in gap years prior to med school? Say an applicant who had two first author papers completed prior/beginning of med school.

First off, slight correction - I'm not program director, just a faculty member.

As to your first question, first author is preferable to middle author. First author basic science is impressive, as long as it is quality work. In this scenario, I would pick the former option. Should be doable to get some first author clinical papers.

As to your second question, I definitely consider pre-med school publications positively. This is especially true if they are first author and represent substantial work on your part.

 

[ProfMD]

1. Which specialty do you interview people for?

2. How important are research papers when you are considering candidates?

3. How do you view papers that are not in fields related to your specialty? Do you have a hierarchy for fields of research, ( Derm > Optho > etc)

4.How do you view applicants from MD schools that have little to no research?

5. As a faculty, what tips would you give a student when they search for a PI?

6. What's your favorite beer?

1) A surgical field.

2) Quite important. Most applicants we see these days have several. Some have one or two. I can't think of any who had none in recent years.

3) Other fields of research are fine. I get that people change their minds about intended specialities. I look at the research as an indication of intellectual curiosity, work ethic, and the ability to get things done.

4) In my field applicants will have a hard time getting an interview with no research. We have had applicants from smaller, research-light schools. They have found research opportunities at their home schools or gone elsewhere to get research experience, even if that means taking a year off.

5) The most important thing, I think, is track record. You want to have a PI who has demonstrated that they are capable of publishing. If your PI hasn't published, you won't either.

6) Unfiltered wheat - Blue Moon being the best known, but I have found a few microbrews I like too.