research-friendly specialty

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
CMVpromoter said:
What is the most research-friendly specialty? Pathology?
Click to expand...
Yes, path, and then the medicine or peds subspecialties would be a close second. Those are the specialties that the majority of MD/PhDs choose.
 
MD/PhDs seem particularly common in immunology and oncology.
 
Pathology, definitely. Radiology is pretty good for research too.
 
Neuronix said:
You don't need a subscription to JAMA to view that data, see Doctor&Geek's site: http://homepage.uab.edu/paik/match.html
Click to expand...

There is an analysis of the data which of course is not up on the website, and is available in the article. The article becomes free of charge six months after publication.

Further supplemental information also located here:

http://www.mstp.uab.edu/jama
(linked in the article)

Also, 2009 data is not up yet. Let me finish my dissertation!

PS: If you're really nice, I get 25 free downloads.
 
I actually was in Wisconsin over the weekend and the faculty interviewing me suggested radiology as research friendly specialty. I almost fell off the chair.
 
there's some slight discrepancy btw website data and JAMA data, i.e. since the website data goes back further than 2004. It's just kind of shocking to see how many people matched into (1) rads (2) derm (3) rad onc.

many have criticized my "credentialing" theory of MD/PhD, but when 15% of radiation oncologist and 7% of dermatologists are MD/PhDs, you really have to kind of think...the relative risk of matching rad onc by being MD/PhD (8.07) is roughly the same as the relative risk of getting lung cancer by being a lifelong smoker (8.0). What's the causal relationship here?
 
sluox said:
there's some slight discrepancy btw website data and JAMA data, i.e. since the website data goes back further than 2004. It's just kind of shocking to see how many people matched into (1) rads (2) derm (3) rad onc.
Click to expand...

Really?

EDIT: Bolded statement in question. There is a discrepancy because non-NIH funded MD/PhD programs were not included in the publication.
 
Last edited:
Doctor&Geek said:
Really?
Click to expand...

I think it's more shocking how many people ended up in IM/path/peds. Face it, many MSTPs went through PhD thinking that it blows, then went back to the wards only to realize that medicine sucks just as much, if not more. Something must've worked somewhere to delude some people into thinking that being a "physician scientist" is a good gig.
 
FSAP said:
I actually was in Wisconsin over the weekend and the faculty interviewing me suggested radiology as research friendly specialty. I almost fell off the chair.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised that it's taken as a given that radiology is research-unfriendly for residents. (Is that because of Neuronix's difficult experiences?)

FWIW, I'm a MD/PhD who's now a PGY-5 in radiology at one of the large programs. I've had a terrific experience, and couldn't ask for more. I was upfront on my interviews that my goal, in addition to becoming a top-notch radiologist, was to establish a research program such that I could be competitive for federal funding at the end of my program. The program director (and the structure of the program itself) has been incredibly supportive of my pursuits. I've had both dedicated research time (as in "I'm on research this week") and informal time (asking to knock off a little early on a slow clinical rotation to write a paper or finish a grant), and I've gotten some seed money from the department. Faculty have been incredibly supportive, and I've had terrific mentoring on everything from interesting research questions, grant preparation, political positioning within departments, and productive collaborations. I've been reasonably productive: several publications (and a few more coming, if I could get myself to write them); awards at national meetings, and at least one small grant (with a couple in the pipeline).

I'm offering all of this not to brag, but just to say that this is all possible in a radiology residency that's supportive. I'm not even unique in my program; one of my colleagues (a non-MD/PhD) is also aggressively pursuing research, and has had similar results. And ANY of my class could have done this, and the resources (especially time) would have been there.

Look, I get that not all programs are this supportive, so I'm grateful for where I am. But even my own personal Nirvana isn't THAT special. There were at least four other programs I interviewed at where I have the definite feeling I would have had this level of support. The big programs value MD/PhDs who are reasonably clinically strong, and they love to support residents doing research. Especially at the big places, they feel it's an important part of their mission to foster that kind of training, because they believe that the future of radiology depends on having such strong radiologist/researchers.

Bottom line, I have---AM---concrete evidence that a radiology residency can be a great environment in which to do research. Give me a couple of years, and I hope I'll demonstrate that it can be a great place to launch a research career.
 
ears said:
Bottom line, I have---AM---concrete evidence that a radiology residency can be a great environment in which to do research. Give me a couple of years, and I hope I'll demonstrate that it can be a great place to launch a research career.
Click to expand...

While I don't doubt you or your experience, rest assured that people w/o H in medicine and/or surgery gets their apps tossed at most of the "top" and "large" radiology programs, PhD or not. Notable exceptions exist, namely WashU--but does Neuronix want to go to St. Louis? Clinical grades are so subjective at times, and do not necessarily correlate to future performance. But the fact that rads is so unfriendly to MD/PhDs, in contrast to say derm/rad onc, where having a PhD gives you a real advantage, speaks volumes of the general attitude of the community towards researchers.
 
antoniosvidne said:
But the fact that rads is so unfriendly to MD/PhDs...
Click to expand...

Come on. The "fact"?

The fact is that MD/PhDs do go into radiology successfully, and are successful there. The JAMA data people were discussing above corroborates that. My own experience supports that, too: there are more MD/PhDs in my residency class than there were in my medical school class. Other research-oriented programs have similar stats: multiple MD/PhDs per class. Given the prevalence of MD/PhDs in the general pool of applicants, isn't it logical to conclude that programs are giving SOME weight to the PhD?

Look, radiology is a competitive match. The most sought-after programs definitely get their pick of the pool, and they want it all: scores, clinical honors, research, and sparkling personalities. If an applicant has their heart set on one of the so-called "top" programs and can't represent the whole package... it's going to be hard for him or her. But I would advise against thinking it'd be much easier for that applicant in derm or rad onc, because they're holding out for the whole package, too.
 
ears said:
Come on. The "fact"?

The fact is that MD/PhDs do go into radiology successfully, and are successful there. The JAMA data people were discussing above corroborates that.
Click to expand...

The data does not speak to this issue. Clearly measurement of "success" is a big problem because relative success rates for MD/PhDs performing research after residency for a particular specialty or program have not been established yet.

My own experience supports that, too: there are more MD/PhDs in my residency class than there were in my medical school class. Other research-oriented programs have similar stats: multiple MD/PhDs per class. Given the prevalence of MD/PhDs in the general pool of applicants, isn't it logical to conclude that programs are giving SOME weight to the PhD?
Click to expand...

I'm glad to see that your program is having great success in attracting and matching MD/PhDs. What is unclear however is the relative support for research training during residency, and the success rates of residents in research following residency.

We all agree that the PhD is given some weight in the application process, but what is unclear is whether a PhD can "make up" for less than stellar clinical performance or USMLE scores at top programs. Based on some of the statements here and from conversations I've had with residents at research oriented programs, the answer is likely no. This is unlike what is seen in specialties such as radiation oncology, pathology, or child neurology.
 
Last edited:
antoniosvidne said:
I think it's more shocking how many people ended up in IM/path/peds. Face it, many MSTPs went through PhD thinking that it blows, then went back to the wards only to realize that medicine sucks just as much, if not more. Something must've worked somewhere to delude some people into thinking that being a "physician scientist" is a good gig.
Click to expand...

Do many MD/PhDs really end up in pediatrics? I haven't heard of that many.
 
I can't speak to some of the specialties mentioned above, but I'd like to say that there's lots of good ways to mesh the MD/PhD with psychiatry (biased, I know; that's what I'm trying to do).

Although it's not a terribly common path, it's something that I think will work well. Psychiatry is a field that is looking for more basic science research, and residency programs are eager to offer it (at least at the bigger academic programs). It's a clinical field that generally works at a more leisurely pace, so it's easier to fit your clinical duties into your research schedule.
 
Doctor&Geek said:
"Stellar" is the keyword there. Is there a qualitative difference between the 240 Step I score and the 260 board score? Honoring one key rotation vs. high pass, taking into account the subjective nature of clinical grading?
Click to expand...


Is 240 vs 260 or 1 honors vs 1 HP what is keeping people out?
 
Quotes to me from an adcom:

"240 is a very average score for Radiology."

"Not having any honors in core clerkships is a big red flag."
 
Neuronix said:
"Not having any honors in core clerkships is a big red flag."
Click to expand...

Well, which are we talking about:
a.) 0 H, 7 HP vs. 6H, 1 HP
b.) 6H, 1HP vs. 7H 0HP

Because I would imagine that those two situations are indeed very different in the mind of an adcom, and I can't imagine that situation B is what is keeping people out of their choice spots.

I guess I don't have much insight on the 240 vs. 260, but are those two scores even statistically significant from each other? I really don't know very much about the distribution.
 
bd4727 said:
Well, which are we talking about:
Click to expand...

None of the above.

c.) 0 H, 7 HP vs. 1 H, 6 HP

Obviously, the more H grades the better. I'm a fan of getting rid of third year grading entirely because it's so competitive, arbitrary, and subjective.

are those two scores even statistically significant from each other? I really don't know very much about the distribution.
Click to expand...

For my exam administration, step 1 scores were 216 mean, 24 std dev. This does vary from administration to administration. In any case, a 240 vs 260 is close to a standard deviation. To put it another way, 240 vs. 260 is 84th percentile vs. 96th percentile.

Doctor&Geek said:
I think *I* was referring to H vs. HP in the clerkship or elective in which you're applying.
Click to expand...

Everyone knows that you'll honor the elective in your desired career choice. Thus, those grades are not used for evaluation, at least in the specialties that do not have core clerkships.
 
I'm a little surprised that nobody has put down neuroscience as one of these...I am leaning that way right now and I thought it was a specialty that was relatively conducive to integrating research and practice. Am I missing something?
 
LadyLightning20 said:
I'm a little surprised that nobody has put down neuroscience as one of these...I am leaning that way right now and I thought it was a specialty that was relatively conducive to integrating research and practice. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Neuroscience or neurobiology is the basic science, whereas neurology is the clinical specialty.

Neurology is a popular specialty among MD/PhDs (historically, I think it was 4th or 5th after IM/peds/path, but with all the derms/rads/rad-onc people that may be changing), partly because there's a lot of thinking (where's the lesion?), a lot of differential diagnosis that may appeal to MD/PhD types, and also because there are a lot of important diseases for which there are no cures and little treatment, and these are great for a researcher to study.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mr.Smile12
HHMI Summer Research Fellowship application open (undergrads)
Replies
0
Views
1K
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
american_mythos
Does type of research matter?
Replies
6
Views
2K
american_mythos
american_mythos
LowGradeInflammation
Question about Postbaccalaureate Research Opportunities
Replies
1
Views
1K
dimplesage
dimplesage
D
What counts as “research productivity” for MD/PhD apps?
Replies
4
Views
1K
deleted1191256
D
B
Lots of research, no publications
Replies
5
Views
3K
Neuronix
Neuronix
Top Bottom