Research year: radiology startup vs. academic research

[faaang]

I'm wondering what would look better for residency applications in terms of a research year:

1. Working for a radiology startup on clinical research to analyze retrospective and prospective trials of a software tool at hospitals across the US
2. Continuing radiology research full-time on a big project that I'm already working on at a top academic institution

Both would have the opportunity to publish (probably #2>#1). I know that a research year is not necessary to match into radiology for the average and above USMD candidate. I'm not really looking for opinions on the value of a research year (unless it's a very strong positive/negative opinion), but I'm more looking to hear what residency application reviewer might think of two apps with these different research year experiences, all else being equal.

On a related note, I'm wondering if it would be weird at all to network with radiologists at academic institutions while working for a startup (instead of purely as a medical student). Would it negatively taint my relationship with those radiologists down the line as a residency applicant, as they might still view me as a startup employee rather than a possible future resident?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[SeisK]

Since no one has responded to this thread:

Productivity in terms of publishing looks more impressive than not publishing. Otherwise for people unfamiliar with each of these projects, they look the same. Unless someone is intimately familiar with the science of both, one is not going to look more impressive than another. Even still, productivity >> impressiveness-sounding of the work.

Would it negatively taint my relationship with those radiologists down the line as a residency applicant, as they might still view me as a startup employee rather than a possible future resident?

This would not negatively impact your application at all.