Should I get involved in research?

[IceDuchess]

Hello everyone,

I would appreciate some advice on whether or not I should get involved in research.

To give some background info: I am currently attending a new medical school in CA with a P/NP grading system, about to start my M2 year. This past year, I started up (and have been president of) an interest group at my school, which has been quite active both at school and in the community. Aside from that, I am a regular member of 4 other interest groups. I am thinking of limiting my M2 year to only studying for step 1, as well as learning medical Spanish.

At the moment, I am interested in either EM or internal medicine. I heard that both of these fields do not require research. However, I do not want to limit myself to only these two options in case something else sparks my interest during clinical rotations. Would not having research significantly limit me in my residency choices?

My main concern is that I won't have "enough" on my application to be considered competitive for residency programs (especially given that I come from a new school). I am not sure if I'm in a good position right now with what I've already accomplished this past year. I understand that I should only get involved with something if it truly interests me. But, I want to get a realistic idea of what my chances are with a good residency if I do not have certain activities, like research, on my application.

Thank you in advance for your time.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted889094]

I think you should do research if you want to get into a competitive program. They tend to care about that I hear.

 

[stickgirl390]

Interest group involvement really doesn’t count for much. The leadership role will give you some brownie points.

 

[DameJulie]

I am guessing your school would have a home EM/IM program. Maybe contact the PD of those programs and see what they're looking for in an applicant. Great resource if your school has that.

I was told that research varies within EM and IM. If you just want to match and don't care where, research is not required. If you want to match into competitive locations/programs/university hospitals, research can help.

 

[NotaCop]

You should research the search bar

 

[AlteredScale]

Hello everyone,

I would appreciate some advice on whether or not I should get involved in research.

To give some background info: I am currently attending a new medical school in CA with a P/NP grading system, about to start my M2 year. This past year, I started up (and have been president of) an interest group at my school, which has been quite active both at school and in the community. Aside from that, I am a regular member of 4 other interest groups. I am thinking of limiting my M2 year to only studying for step 1, as well as learning medical Spanish.

At the moment, I am interested in either EM or internal medicine. I heard that both of these fields do not require research. However, I do not want to limit myself to only these two options in case something else sparks my interest during clinical rotations. Would not having research significantly limit me in my residency choices?

My main concern is that I won't have "enough" on my application to be considered competitive for residency programs (especially given that I come from a new school). I am not sure if I'm in a good position right now with what I've already accomplished this past year. I understand that I should only get involved with something if it truly interests me. But, I want to get a realistic idea of what my chances are with a good residency if I do not have certain activities, like research, on my application.

Thank you in advance for your time.

It depends on what you apply to. Physician scientist training pathway or research track? Yes you better have research, yes you better have productivity, yes you should be able to talk about the projects you worked on in good detail.

Want a competitive T10 uni program with eyes on a fellowship? Yes, you need good research experience.

Just want to land a spot at a mid tier uni program? Would be good to have something as most of the other applicants will have something.

Don’t care and just want IM anywhere including smaller community programs. Probably not important.

A word of advice: quality >>>>> quantity. Do not run around and hop on 15 things so your name is one them. Do good work and commit fully to a few things. PDs and faculty know the difference, especially at the university level.

 

[M&L]

It depends on what you apply to. Physician scientist training pathway or research track? Yes you better have research, yes you better have productivity, yes you should be able to talk about the projects you worked on in good detail.

Want a competitive T10 uni program with eyes on a fellowship? Yes, you need good research experience.

Just want to land a spot at a mid tier uni program? Would be good to have something as most of the other applicants will have something.

Don’t care and just want IM anywhere including smaller community programs. Probably not important.

A word of advice: quality >>>>> quantity. Do not run around and hop on 15 things so your name is one them. Do good work and commit fully to a few things. PDs and faculty know the difference, especially at the university level.

Thank you . I was wondering about that myself

 

[DrRedstone]

Quality research > any research > no research

I don't think you'll ever regret having some research, but you may regret not doing any at all.

 

[deleted889094]

It depends on what you apply to. Physician scientist training pathway or research track? Yes you better have research, yes you better have productivity, yes you should be able to talk about the projects you worked on in good detail.

Want a competitive T10 uni program with eyes on a fellowship? Yes, you need good research experience.

Just want to land a spot at a mid tier uni program? Would be good to have something as most of the other applicants will have something.

Don’t care and just want IM anywhere including smaller community programs. Probably not important.

A word of advice: quality >>>>> quantity. Do not run around and hop on 15 things so your name is one them. Do good work and commit fully to a few things. PDs and faculty know the difference, especially at the university level.

I've heard people say quality>quantity, but then you hear about the # of 'research activities' for different specialties, etc. How do you balance that?

 

[M&L]

On that note : I know that publications are obviously the best , but how do poster presentations value ? Are they a waste of time , or still pretty good ?

 

[M&L]

Also , can someone with insight comment on clinical vs bench vs social determinants of health research ? I am trying to get into clinical , of course . But my school is also big on Social determinants of health , so I am wondering if residencies care about that type of research ?

 

[DrRedstone]

I think the best research is research you can get excited about. Most of my projects are meta-research, looking at quality of what we use to guide clinical practice. I could talk for hours on it because it has become a passion. I haven't touched a patient for any of my research.

Poster presentations are not as good as peer-reviewed, but they are still something you can talk about. I think (emphasis on my opinion, not verified) PDs are more concerned that you have engaged in the research process. The exact content of your research is not the most important thing.

 

[DameJulie]

Poster presentations are not as good as peer-reviewed, but they are still something you can talk about.

I heard that on ERAS, you put all your pub/poster/presentations together in one section. Because of that, PDs will have a hard time telling them apart. So for the initial screening, a poster is just as a good as a pub. But later when it comes to ranking time, when PDs actually carefully read your app they will count them separately. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[DrRedstone]

I heard that on ERAS, you put all your pub/poster/presentations together in one section. Because of that, PDs will have a hard time telling them apart. So for the initial screening, a poster is just as a good as a pub. But later when it comes to ranking time, when PDs actually carefully read your app they will count them separately. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

That's my understanding of ERAS (I'm more familiar with SF match at this point).

 

[QuizzicalApe]

On that note : I know that publications are obviously the best , but how do poster presentations value ? Are they a waste of time , or still pretty good ?

They are definitely good. It demonstrates you were involved with a project so you have an understanding of the basics of research and that you were able to carry it forward to the point where it produced something tangible, in this case a poster presentation, which involves having a good understanding of the research (IE not just getting your name slapped on something).

 

[DameJulie]

They are definitely good. It demonstrates you were involved with a project so you have an understanding of the basics of research and that you were able to carry it forward to the point where it produced something tangible, in this case a poster presentation, which involves having a good understanding of the research (IE not just getting your name slapped on something).

Does the conference you attend matter, in terms of level (school research day vs. national specialty conference) and prestige?

What are some good (famous and maybe prestigious) conferences that med students can participate in? Doesn't have to be specialty specific.

 

[QuizzicalApe]

Does the conference you attend matter, in terms of level (school research day vs. national specialty conference) and prestige?

What are some good (famous and maybe prestigious) conferences that med students can participate in? Doesn't have to be specialty specific.

Generally it doesn't matter where you present in the sense that your accomplishment won't be disregarded if you do it at a research day as opposed to a national conference, but obviously the more prestigious the place you're presenting the more impressive it will be to anyone who learns about it.

Prestige of conferences is entirely dependent on the speciality. In my field (hematology/oncology) the biggest conferences are the American Society of Hematology (ASH) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), but there are many other fairly prestigious, more tightly focused/subspecialized conferences as well. I couldn't even begin to guess what the important conferences are in other specialties. I'm too deep in my own silo.

 

[AlteredScale]

I've heard people say quality>quantity, but then you hear about the # of 'research activities' for different specialties, etc. How do you balance that?

Well that's because there's no way for them to quantify quality of work. You have to take into consideration that the description of research activities is everything in total including abstracts, posters, and just experiences that you've had.

Just to reiterate, my research mentor here at my university program called anyone who had more publications than tenured research faculty "eyebrow raising" (which has happened on many occasions as they review GI fellowship applications) because it questions the quality of the research being put forth. Research is not and should not be a numbers game but sadly many people fall into that trap.

PDs are more concerned that you have engaged in the research process. The exact content of your research is not the most important thing.

Just as a qualifier, it really depends on the context. If you are applying for ENT or NSX you better damn well have research in or nearby those fields. If it's internal medicine then you have a lot more wiggle room. If you are going for a t20 IM program, your research needs to be high quality, because that is the "standard" of applicant for those programs.

If you are applying for the physician scientist training pathway you usually want an actual focus of your research so they can pair you with the right mentors for interviews.

Also , can someone with insight comment on clinical vs bench vs social determinants of health research ? I am trying to get into clinical , of course . But my school is also big on Social determinants of health , so I am wondering if residencies care about that type of research ?

I have done both bench and clinical (prospective and retro) as well as big data research with NIS. It depends on residency as each of one can have a different focus (ie a community program having a stronger focus on social determinants of health vs a university program having a strong backbone in lab research with lots of NIH funding).

Does the conference you attend matter, in terms of level (school research day vs. national specialty conference) and prestige?

What are some good (famous and maybe prestigious) conferences that med students can participate in? Doesn't have to be specialty specific.

For the most part for presenting: National conferences >> regional conferences >>>> local/school conferences.
ACP is a big one that medical students can not only present at but to also meet PD's. GI has DDW (more prestigious) and ACG and now Crohn's and Colitis (which I'm not sure if it overtook AIBD or what).

 

[DameJulie]

If you are going for a t20 IM program, your research needs to be high quality, because that is the "standard" of applicant for those programs.

Can you elaborate on what "high quality" research is? Is it based on the student's accomplishment (i.e. first author paper in high impact journal), the type of research (i.e. basic science and clinical research), or the actual topic of the research (i.e. world-changing discoveries of finding the perfect cure for COVID-19).

 

[DameJulie]

ACP is a big one that medical students can not only present at but to also meet PD's. GI has DDW (more prestigious) and ACG and now Crohn's and Colitis (which I'm not sure if it overtook AIBD or what).

For students who don't have access to specialty conference (yet), would you say AOA/AMA or state medical association/osteopathic medical association meetings are considered prestigous conferences?

 

[AlteredScale]

Can you elaborate on what "high quality" research is? Is it based on the student's accomplishment (i.e. first author paper in high impact journal), the type of research (i.e. basic science and clinical research), or the actual topic of the research (i.e. world-changing discoveries of finding the perfect cure for COVID-19).

Good quality: committing to a project and doing the work, reading the literature, really understanding why you're doing what you're doing and how it will impact the field. Doesn't matter the type. And no one is looking for you to make any breakthrough discoveries. High quality in terms of you did good work with what you had and can talk about it in such a way that it doesn't sound like CV filler is what I mean by that.

For students who don't have access to specialty conference (yet), would you say AOA/AMA or state medical association/osteopathic medical association meetings are considered prestigous conferences?

Prestige of a conference really isn't the factor you should be worried about. Getting into any national conference is tough because of deadlines and what not and the fact that you can't shoot your abstract to multiple conference. You just need to submit to one that you think would fit the quality of work. As a medical student you would not really know this, so ask your research mentor/PI.

 

[Throwaway5129]

Generally it doesn't matter where you present in the sense that your accomplishment won't be disregarded if you do it at a research day as opposed to a national conference, but obviously the more prestigious the place you're presenting the more impressive it will be to anyone who learns about it.

Prestige of conferences is entirely dependent on the speciality. In my field (hematology/oncology) the biggest conferences are the American Society of Hematology (ASH) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), but there are many other fairly prestigious, more tightly focused/subspecialized conferences as well. I couldn't even begin to guess what the important conferences are in other specialties. I'm too deep in my own silo.

Is there a way to find a list of these types of conferences? especially ones students can present at?

 

[QuizzicalApe]

Is there a way to find a list of these types of conferences? especially ones students can present at?

It depends on your research. There are so many even if you had a list it'd be hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. I can only speak to oncology/hematology and related fields. Every cancer type basically has its own conference, as does geriatric oncology and associated fields like supportive care.

If you want to find the biggest conference, it's hard to go wrong with searching with the format "specialty" society conference.

But realistically the best way is to ask whoever you're working with as a primary investigator or research mentor which conferences may be applicable as they'll be well-versed in that field of research most likely and will already know the relevant list.

 

[DameJulie]

It depends on your research. There are so many even if you had a list it'd be hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. I can only speak to oncology/hematology and related fields. Every cancer type basically has its own conference, as does geriatric oncology and associated fields like supportive care.

If you want to find the biggest conference, it's hard to go wrong with searching with the format "specialty" society conference.

But realistically the best way is to ask whoever you're working with as a primary investigator or research mentor which conferences may be applicable as they'll be well-versed in that field of research most likely and will already know the relevant list.

If you are doing more independent research, ask your upperclassman to see if they know any student-friendly conferences. At my school a few had done that without an involved PI.