Opportunities for research as a radiology resident

[AD2020]

I'm interested in going into academic radiology and I wanted to know about research during residency.

How common is it for residents to do research? Would this be done during elective time or superimposed on whatever you are rotating through?

Which programs allow time for and encourage research? Which programs have the best reputation for research in radiology?

I assume that most projects would be clinical - but are there basic science opportunities as well? (I'm currently doing basic science research in nuclear medicine, but there are no residents in my lab) What degree of autonomy do residents have in designing their own projects?

Thanks in advance for your help.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[AD2020]

I understand that the most interesting threads on this forum relate to either "how will I get into radiology? " or "how much will I make? "

Given that, my boring post above probably had too many questions . Still, I would really appreciate answers to any of them, even if you don't have time to answer more than one.

Cheers.

PS - thanks Apache, I'll have that checked out.

 

[SlippingSloth]

I recommend a STAT brain MRI.

Maybe I am a naive medstudent, but it seems that eventually the lack of academic radiologists will lead to a decline for the rest of the field. If the orthopedists, cardiologists, and vascular surgeons are the clinical researchers that get the new devices approved and get their residents trained on said new equipment, I wonder who will be doing those procedures in 10-20 years? I am not saying Rads will be gone by any stretch of the imagination. However, I strongly believe that those who are actually interested in academic radiology because of research/intellectual stimulation/whatever despite the lower reimbursement should not be belittled for it. Radiology needs researchers or else the engineers to whom nearly all radiologists owe their livelihood will be unable to provide new, expensive, and money making devices to the field. And I bet most people who aren't going into academics care about the technical fees on their new 25(jk)T MRI machines. Not a complete opinion, but radiology needs academics.


As to the broader question asked by the OP, I know residents have the opportunity to do clinical research at UCLA. I am currently working on a project with a resident and fellow. I cannot say much about things outside my white castle/institution though.

 

[AD2020]

Thanks SS for the intelligent post. Good luck with your research.

 

[jpro]

I think doing a research project is now a requirement for residency. The requirement does not have to be a published groundbreaking article in the NEJM. From what I've heard a lecture or poster presentation is enough. Maybe someone else could confirm or deny this.

 

[AD2020]

Apache, what percentage of rads residents would you say do research?

 

[AD2020]

First let's make sure we're on the same page:

1. Medical student research is bogus.
2. Resident research is for the most part bogus.
3. Attending research, if not totally bogus, is usually esoteric and insignificant.

We're actually not on the same page on that. While I know only a small percentage of research projects directly result in something that's clinically useful, those that don't fall into this category increase the scientific body of knowledge and provide a context for those projects that are successful. I'm not sure what research you've been exposed to, but I've had a very different experience.

A second thing: I guess you're referring to clinical research when you provide your hierarchy on how useless medical students are relative to residents/attendings, but I've spoken to more than one prominent basic science researcher that has said they love having students because we are less prone to dogmatic thinking. For breakthroughs to happen, there almost always has to be an element of thinking that's outside of the current dogma. Furthermore, in basic science research, medical students with undergraduate degrees in the physical sciences or engineering can be more useful than a resident who is several more years removed from their basic science training.

I can already see your upcoming post on how useless basic science research is...

 

[jpro]

http://rfs.acr.org/current/topics_program.htm

check out number 13

I think these changes will be coming online in the near future.

 

[Karl Hungus]

http://rfs.acr.org/current/topics_program.htm

check out number 13

I think these changes will be coming online in the near future.

Well, that just ruined my day / life.

 

[Neuronix]

I have spent years doing full-time basic science Rads research and I completely agree with ApacheIndian's statements so far on this thread. Kudos.

If you are serious about doing research. Be serious. Take a year full-time with resources, funding, and a full-time/near full-time research mentor to get things accomplished and bang out something of quality. If you and/or the program are not willing to commit the time and resources necessary to produce quality work, don't bother. No more half-assing it, IMO.

That being said, if you are interested in getting solid research training, Penn has a research program that gives you a year of protected time. According to my MD/PhD buddies, MGH has the same thing but sort of unofficially. Alternatively, you could try the Holman Pathway:

http://www.theabr.org/RO_Holman.htm

This is supposedly offered anywhere you want to apply for it from, but I hear few programs are friendly to this possibility.

 

[AD2020]

If you are serious about doing research. Be serious. Take a year full-time with resources, funding, and a full-time/near full-time research mentor to get things accomplished and bang out something of quality. If you and/or the program are not willing to commit the time and resources necessary to produce quality work, don't bother. No more half-assing it, IMO.

I agree - I'm actually doing a full-time one-year research fellowship now (between 3rd and 4th year) - but I committed to this only after I knew there was an great project for me to work on.

It's great to know about these options at Penn and with the Holman pathway, but committing to a research track without knowing about the research I'd eventually be doing would be difficult for me. The ideal situation would be for me to have some autonomy in the design of a research project (working with an attending mentor), with the flexibility to schedule clinical rotations around 2-3 months (or more) of research. This would be with the understanding that my responsibilities would likely continue after I resume clinical work (data analysis, writing a paper, etc). Do you think any programs would be friendly to this kind of arrangement?

Thanks a lot for the info and your opinions, Neuronix.

 

[Neuronix]

The ideal situation would be for me to have some autonomy in the design of a research project (working with an attending mentor), with the flexibility to schedule clinical rotations around 2-3 months (or more) of research.

I think every academic program would be friendly to 2-3 months of research. However, this goes back to what I was saying earlier. This isn't much time to get serious research accomplished. If you're serious about doing research, commit that you want the time up front. You can always find a project. It's much harder to find the time once you're in the program in a clinical pathway.

I mean, you're already saying you really want to be in "academic medicine". Why? Is it because you want research to be a significant component of your future life? Or is it--I only want to be in academic medicine if I have a good project? Well, I guess you could say that, but that's not what everyone always says. So, if you are serious about research, you should try to get the best training in that you can on the front end. This is true even if you're unsure which you want, because you're likely not to get much research experience unless you push for it.

 

[TheMightyAngus]

Doesn't most of the interesting DxRads research require a heavy background in math, physics, or engineering?

I guess there is molecular imaging and interventional research. But if you were the run of the mill rads resident and wanted to do basic science type work you I think you would be limited in what you can do. No?

 

[Neuronix]

Doesn't most of the interesting DxRads research require a heavy background in math, physics, or engineering?

Some, not all. Everyone in Rads research comes from a different background and nobody is an expert in all the areas. It's nice because everyone can contribute in their own way.

I guess there is molecular imaging and interventional research. But if you were the run of the mill rads resident and wanted to do basic science type work you I think you would be limited in what you can do. No?

An invaluable part of the time required to do quality research is the startup/learning time. Anyone can learn what they need to do work in Radiology research. Having a physics/math/engineering background is only helpful because you can already use the tools, such as programming and mathematical simulations that are used in MR research. But, just because you're from one of those backgrounds doesn't mean you already know anything about MR or CT or PET research, and these people have a steep learning curve as much as anyone else. Maybe the #1 thing those backgrounds give you is confidence, but if you can get over that part I'm not sure any one background suits one for doing the "best" MR research.

Sure, if you want to do the sort of research where you just run canned scanning protocols someone has set up for you and change one parameter or image two subsets of patients with it and analyze the data, you can certainly do that and it won't take much time, but what have you really learned about becoming an independent investigator?