Trends in LizzyM Scores Over Time

[Lawpy]

So a recent thread this morning asking about the long-term trends of medical school admissions resulted in some nice charts and figures. I decided to make a separate thread to emphasize these findings, and focus specifically on trends in GPAs, MCATs and LizzyM scores.

Thanks to @efle for taking the time to construct these figures for US MD admissions (data were gathered from AAMC Table A-16.)

I'm not gonna try to extrapolate off the data 5-10 years into the future for apps/matrics because as you can see it's not a nice linear trend. I did go ahead and add a point for GPA and MCAT (old) in the 2020-2021 cycle if the trends there had held.

I think the new MCAT is going to make things weird for a cycle or two and I have no idea at all about what the EC expectations were like 5-10 years ago vs now.

Below are the updated charts to include: AMCAS matriculant MCAT and GPA data from 2000-2005, AACOMAS MCAT and GPA data from 2010-2015, and TMDSAS MCAT and GPA data from 2007-2016.

Sources for the data:

Applicants:
http://www.aacom.org/docs/default-source/data-and-trends/2011-14-AProfRpt.pdf?sfvrsn=26
http://www.aacom.org/docs/default-source/data-and-trends/2012-15-app-report.pdf?sfvrsn=10
https://www.tmdsas.com/medical/application-statistics.html

Matriculants:
https://www.studentdoctor.net/2009/04/gpa-and-mcat/
http://www.aacom.org/news-and-event...ntering-class-of-osteopathic-medical-students
https://www.aacom.org/docs/default-source/archive-data-and-trends/2011-Mat.pdf?sfvrsn=10
http://www.aacom.org/docs/default-source/data-and-trends/2012-15-matprofilerpt.pdf?sfvrsn=8
https://www.tmdsas.com/medical/application-statistics.html

Mean GPAs and mean MCATs were used. LizzyM scores are calculated using the formula: LizzyM = 10*GPA + MCAT. I didn't extrapolate or conduct linear regression since I was more focused on long-term trends.

Enjoy!

GPA Trends

MCAT Trends

LizzyM Score Trends

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[efle]

What the heck happened in Texas in ~2012?

 

[LizzyM]

This is very interesting. My first thought would have been that those with lower scores did not apply thus raising the applicant and matriculant averages but I believe that the number of applicants has also been on the rise so that is not the driving force. Clearly we are in an arms race with everyone working harder for higher GPA and MCAT scores and it shows.

 

[libertyyne]

I had theorized that the reset of the MCAT + holistic evaluation trend would lead to the slowing down to the LizzyM arms race by at atleat 2 points.

 

[efle]

Clearly we are in an arms race

Is the "we" in this applicants or medical schools? A 31 has been the same percentile for the last few years but the typical admitted score is climbing up past that point, which must be on the med school's end?

 

[LizzyM]

Is the "we" in this applicants or medical schools? A 31 has been the same percentile for the last few years but the typical admitted score is climbing up past that point, which must be on the med school's end?

The competition to get into a school is the arms race that applicants are engaged in.
The competition to get the best candidates to choose us is the arms race that the schools are engaged in.

 

[efle]

The competition to get the best candidates to choose us is the arms race that the schools are engaged in.

I'd love to see a plot of average financial aid packages for high LizzyM applicants over the past 10-15 years too

 

[RogueBanana]

The competition to get into a school is the arms race that applicants are engaged in.
The competition to get the best candidates to choose us is the arms race that the schools are engaged in.

Two different races, both leading to the same neurotic finish-line.

 

[_Nightlight_]

Great post Lawper. Nice and clean figures. Gotta say seeing stuff like this makes me SO grateful to be accepted, even if it comes with its own new set of trials and tribulations.

 

[Mad Jack]

I had theorized that the reset of the MCAT + holistic evaluation trend would lead to the slowing down to the LizzyM arms race by at atleat 2 points.

There's no brakes on the LizzyM train. We're going straight to space.

 

[RogueBanana]

There's no brakes on the LizzyM train. We're going straight to space.

Eventually we'll reach an event horizon and only 4.0 / 525 candidates with first author publications will even be interviewed. DO schools will become the equivalent to what MD is now, and MD will become rare unicorns that cure cancer with a thought.

 

[freak7]

Hey, I'm just happy to be doing my part and pulling those averages down!

 

[libertyyne]

chart this with the s&P 500 Average or some other economic metric. I bet there is an inverse relationship.

 

[Lucca]

chart this with the s&P 500 Average or some other economic metric. I bet there is an inverse relationship.

s&p 500 is rly far removed from real economy. Median household income / employment rate might be better. I agree though. More unemployment, lower real incomes ---> more people into the education pipeline to get more stable jobs. Probably a weak correlation with medicine though since it is a very self selecting population already.

 

[freak7]

chart this with the s&P 500 Average or some other economic metric. I bet there is an inverse relationship.

s&p 500 is rly far removed from real economy. Median household income / employment rate might be better. I agree though. More unemployment, lower real incomes ---> more people into the education pipeline to get more stable jobs. Probably a weak correlation with medicine though since it is a very self selecting population already.

Now compare it to average number of hot dogs eaten in organized hot dog eating contests

 

[LizzyM]

I think that AAMC had great hope that resetting MCAT and focusing on "500" as a passing grade and "good enough" would move people toward holistic review but just like board scores, some schools, like some specialties, are still number ******. Frankly, the sort of people who focus enormous resources on scoring 520+ are not the sort that I find desirable as medical students but I'm not the Dean.

 

[Nietzsche's Barber]

Frankly, the sort of people who focus enormous resources on scoring 520+ are not the sort that I find desirable as medical students but I'm not the Dean.

I was unbelievably happy with my mediocre MCAT score. Last year at the end of one of my interviews, an interviewer commented: "It's refreshing to talk to someone who hasn't spent their entire life in the library". So you are not alone in your thinking.

 

[efle]

Frankly, the sort of people who focus enormous resources on scoring 520+ are not the sort that I find desirable as medical students

Do you believe 520+ requires everyone to focus enormous resources? Like if I walk in to interview with you with a 40+ do you already dislike me, even if I studied part time for a couple months like most people do?

 

[kb1900]

I think that AAMC had great hope that resetting MCAT and focusing on "500" as a passing grade and "good enough" would move people toward holistic review but just like board scores, some schools, like some specialties, are still number ******. Frankly, the sort of people who focus enormous resources on scoring 520+ are not the sort that I find desirable as medical students but I'm not the Dean.

I was unbelievably happy with my mediocre MCAT score. Last year at the end of one of my interviews, an interviewer commented: "It's refreshing to talk to someone who hasn't spent their entire life in the library". So you are not alone in your thinking.

This makes the assumption that those scoring 520+ spent more time studying for the mcat than those scoring slightly lower. Anecdotally I've found this to not be true at all.

 

[787593]

I think that AAMC had great hope that resetting MCAT and focusing on "500" as a passing grade and "good enough" would move people toward holistic review but just like board scores, some schools, like some specialties, are still number ******. Frankly, the sort of people who focus enormous resources on scoring 520+ are not the sort that I find desirable as medical students but I'm not the Dean.

But the high stat people still need quality ECs to get into medical school. Provided they have the ECs, what makes them undesirable to you? Would you rather have a class full of 50th percentile MCAT scorers with the same ECs?

 

[787593]

This makes the assumption that those scoring 520+ spent more time studying for the mcat than those scoring slightly lower. Anecdotally I've found this to not be true at all.

I put in a little over 500 hours of studying but it was spread out over months.

 

[libertyyne]

I put in a little over 500 hours of studying but it was spread out over months.

I put in about 500 of just studying as well. I worked full time during this, so I didn't just spend it in the library.

 

[LizzyM]

There are people who will do the ECs they need to do to get what they want and for no other reason. There is no curiosity driving their research, no compassion or altruism driving their service to others, no enjoyment of teamwork motivating their engagement in clubs and outside activities. These folks are often gunners when it comes to grades and scores. Not all 4.0/40 applicants are gunners but some are and they are not the best medical students.

But the high stat people still need quality ECs to get into medical school. Provided they have the ECs, what makes them undesirable to you? Would you rather have a class full of 50th percentile MCAT scorers with the same ECs?

I would prefer a 50th percentile MCAT with a joie de vivre, intellectual curiosity, resilience, compassion over a box-checking gunner with a 524.

 

[begoood95]

I think that AAMC had great hope that resetting MCAT and focusing on "500" as a passing grade and "good enough" would move people toward holistic review but just like board scores, some schools, like some specialties, are still number ******. Frankly, the sort of people who focus enormous resources on scoring 520+ are not the sort that I find desirable as medical students but I'm not the Dean.

I was unbelievably happy with my mediocre MCAT score. Last year at the end of one of my interviews, an interviewer commented: "It's refreshing to talk to someone who hasn't spent their entire life in the library". So you are not alone in your thinking.

A lot of people are jumping on you for that @LizzyM, but I would agree with them--that not everyone who scores a 520+ spends all their time in the library. I scored a 525, but I'd attribute that more generally to test taking skills and stress management (throughout the course of studying). Obviously I studied my *** off, but that's not all there is too it. Furthermore, while your particular school may not be looking for "gunners" (whatever that's really supposed to mean), others may in fact want someone who shows both an unrelenting commitment to their academics and an obvious joie de vivre, a love and compassion for things outside of medicine. It's not impossible to have both.

Leaders in medicine, those who aspire to go above and beyond the status quo, are necessarily "gunners." They're driven, passionate, and are extremely dedicated. That doesn't mean they can't be human though, and I think that's where some people are taking issue with your statement.

 

[787593]

There are people who will do the ECs they need to do to get what they want and for no other reason. There is no curiosity driving their research, no compassion or altruism driving their service to others, no enjoyment of teamwork motivating their engagement in clubs and outside activities. These folks are often gunners when it comes to grades and scores. Not all 4.0/40 applicants are gunners but some are and they are not the best medical students.



I would prefer a 50th percentile MCAT with a joie de vivre, intellectual curiosity, resilience, compassion over a box-checking gunner with a 524.

High stats don't necessitate that an applicant has a lack of curiousity/compassion/joy/altruism.

A guy/gal with a 500 MCAT could easily be a box-checking gunner.

I'd take the 524 MCAT guy who has the "joie de vivre, intellectual curiosity, resilience, compassion" over the 500 MCAT guy with that very same "joie de vivre, intellectual curiosity, resilience, compassion."

Don't we want the very best getting into medical school? Help me see where I'm wrong here.

 

[787593]

I put in about 500 of just studying as well. I worked full time during this, so I didn't just spend it in the library.

I was in school and had to balance biochem, physiology, and physics II with my MCAT studying. Thankfully there was overlap in the material, haha.

 

[UberUdder09]

Furthermore, while your particular school may not be looking for "gunners" (whatever that's really supposed to mean), others may in fact want someone who shows both an unrelenting commitment to their academics and an obvious joie de vivre, a love and compassion for things outside of medicine. It's not impossible to have both.

While you can certainly speak for yourself (n=1), remember that there are a lot of other people out there and LizzyM is speaking from a different perspective than you.

Think about this: I could program a computer to get a 528 on the MCAT and it could take the test in less than 5 seconds. But, would you want a computer to be taking care of you as a physician?

Just a thought..

 

[libertyyne]

While you can certainly speak for yourself (n=1), remember that there are a lot of other people out there and LizzyM is speaking from a different perspective than you.

Think about this: I could program a computer to get a 528 on the MCAT and it could take the test in less than 5 seconds. But, would you want a computer to be taking care of you as a physician?

Just a thought..

Sounds like one kick ass computer.i would, humans make mistakes more often then computers. I don't want a meat bag accidentally killing me because they didn't have their coffee in the morning.

 

[787593]

A lot of people are jumping on you for that @LizzyM, but I would agree with them--that not everyone who scores a 520+ spends all their time in the library. I scored a 525, but I'd attribute that more generally to test taking skills and stress management (throughout the course of studying). Obviously I studied my *** off, but that's not all there is too it. Furthermore, while your particular school may not be looking for "gunners" (whatever that's really supposed to mean), others may in fact want someone who shows both an unrelenting commitment to their academics and an obvious joie de vivre, a love and compassion for things outside of medicine. It's not impossible to have both.

Leaders in medicine, those who aspire to go above and beyond the status quo, are necessarily "gunners." They're driven, passionate, and are extremely dedicated. That doesn't mean they can't be human though, and I think that's where some people are taking issue with your statement.

This^^ *claps*

 

[787593]

While you can certainly speak for yourself (n=1), remember that there are a lot of other people out there and LizzyM is speaking from a different perspective than you.

Think about this: I could program a computer to get a 528 on the MCAT and it could take the test in less than 5 seconds. But, would you want a computer to be taking care of you as a physician?

Just a thought..

Could we also program compassion and the ability to work through ethical dilemmas? Haha

 

[begoood95]

While you can certainly speak for yourself (n=1), remember that there are a lot of other people out there and LizzyM is speaking from a different perspective than you.

Think about this: I could program a computer to get a 528 on the MCAT and it could take the test in less than 5 seconds. But, would you want a computer to be taking care of you as a physician?

Just a thought..

I fully recognize that not everyone can or even aims to score a 520+ while balancing a competitive yet personally rejuvenating set of EC's. That's not what I'm saying. I'm providing one counter example to @LizzyM's assertion, of which there are many, many more--just look at the "top 20" schools MCAT range. Do they accept lower than average scores? Of course they do, but in general they don't.

Do you think those students are robots? The students that score in the 90th+ percentiles, and matriculate into these "top" schools, do you think they're any less committed, or passionate, than someone who scores a 500-510? I'd wager that they're not. The MCAT predicts success in medical school, among other, tangential things. That's why it's held to such a high regard.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using SDN mobile

 

[UberUdder09]

Sounds like one kick ass computer.i would, humans make mistakes more often then computers. I don't want a meat bag accidentally killing me because they didn't have their coffee in the morning.

Hah! Google's algorithms for processing information would exceed the learning ability of an entire university and make less than one mistake in over a billion decisions.

Could we also program compassion and the ability to work through ethical dilemmas? Haha

With the computers we have today, we could add a dash of compassion to WebMD, disguise it as a person and it (the computer) could become a leader in medicine.

 

[Lawpy]

Personally, my ranking would be high stats + strong ECs > high stats + weak/checkbox ECs > low stats + strong ECs >>> low stats + checkbox ECs.

Good academics is necessary to demonstrate continued academic excellence throughout the medical journey. Good ECs are needed to show applicants are unique, interesting individuals beyond just focusing on medicine. So the two should complement and not oppose each other. But to minimize/eliminate on failing out and/or performing suboptimally in the medical journey, emphasis on academics is a must, and hence the higher priority placed on strong stats.

 

[begoood95]

Oh and on computers, any truly compassionate physican--who puts the welfare of their patients first--when given evidence that an AI diagnoses much more accurately and safely, would/ought to embrace it wholeheartedly.

I am 110% sure that in the not too distant future, AI will take over much of the diagnosing and etc. that physicians normally do. And that's not a bad thing--even though it might make you uneasy.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using SDN mobile

 

[libertyyne]

Oh and on computers, any truly compassionate physican--who puts the welfare of their patients first--when given evidence that an AI diagnoses much more accurately and safely, would/ought to embrace it wholeheartedly.

I am 110% sure that in the not too distant future, AI will take over much of the diagnosing and etc. that physicians normally do. And that's not a bad thing--even though it might make you uneasy.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using SDN mobile

I don't think it will be in the next 20 years where it will completely take over, however it will displace easily accessible data like rads and path. You are still going to need a doctor run codes , treat mental health, do neurological assessments etc.

 

[UberUdder09]

I fully recognize that not everyone can or even aims to score a 520+ while balancing a competitive yet personally rejuvenating set of EC's. That's not what I'm saying. I'm providing one counter example to @LizzyM's assertion, of which there are many, many more--just look at the "top 20" schools MCAT range. Do they accept lower than average scores? Of course they do, but in general they don't.

Do you think those students are robots? The students that score in the 90th+ percentiles, and matriculate into these "top" schools, do you think they're any less committed, or passionate, than someone who scores a 500-510? I'd wager that they're not. The MCAT predicts success in medical school, among other, tangential things. That's why it's held to such a high regard.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using SDN mobile

I don't disagree with you at all. I propose that a high MCAT doesn't necessarily mean that person will be an excellent physician. And, top medical schools, as LizzyM suggests, may not be accepting people with high scores simply because they have a great smile.

The computer example I gave is just to illustrate that clicking the right radio button enough times can achieve a 99th-percentile. There's obviously more to medicine than that. Like a dipstick measures the oil level in an engine, it tells nothing about how well that engine runs.

From yet another perspective, my biochemistry textbook could get a 132 in the biology section but it won't be curing cancer.

Remember: "I don't disagree with you at all" (see beginning of post)

 

[Goro]

One can spot these people right off the bat because they do little else other than academics. At best, they have cookie cutter ECs. OR, they have a huge number of Ecs after their junior year and have taken MCAT.

Do you believe 520+ requires everyone to focus enormous resources? Like if I walk in to interview with you with a 40+ do you already dislike me, even if I studied part time for a couple months like most people do?

 

[begoood95]

I don't think it will be in the next 20 years where it will completely take over, however it will displace easily accessible data like rads and path. You are still going to need a doctor run codes , treat mental health, do neurological assessments etc.

While I'm sure there are some physician-scientists who can code, I think we're better off leaving that stuff to experts in that field. What I mean is that, yeah, we'll need doctors to run codes (I doubt physicians will be obsolete at all in the near future...but complete obsolescence isn't unfathomable), but I don't think that's where the physicians in the AI-mediated world will be: AI will overtake fields in which computation is necessary and creates better patient outcomes (like you said, rads, to an extent oncology [think sequencing genomes, then running bioinformatics programs to the effect of predicting mutations/resistance/etc], probably pathology, and etc.). Those disciplines which are not computational intensive, or necessitate a human component--maybe IM, or surgical specialities, ER, etc.--won't be taken over for a while, I think.

It's exciting either way, and a conversation future physicians and society as a whole has to have!

I don't disagree with you at all. I propose that a high MCAT doesn't necessarily mean that person will be an excellent physician. And, top medical schools, as LizzyM suggests, may not be accepting people with high scores simply because they have a great smile.

The computer example I gave is just to illustrate that clicking the right radio button enough times can achieve a 99th-percentile. There's obviously more to medicine than that. Like a dipstick measures the oil level in an engine, it tells nothing about how well that engine runs.

From yet another perspective, my biochemistry textbook could get a 132 in the biology section but it won't be curing cancer.

Remember: "I don't disagree with you at all" (see beginning of post)

I agree with your proposition: a high MCAT score does not necessarily guarantee that a person will be an excellent physician. If it came off as me arguing that top medical schools are only accepting people as a function of their MCAT score, then that was my mistake and wasn't my intention. What I meant was that the MCAT score is a very important cog of one's entire application, the success of which depends on a number of factors. Of course there's more to medicine than grades/MCAT score/science! That is 100% true, and I have not contention with that statement. But, I think it's important that we recognize the gravity of one's MCAT score, and its impact on their chances, for, at the very least, an interview. I view it as one's ticket to an interview, during which the adcomms will decide whether or not you're a good fit.

Abysmal MCAT = no II. Good MCAT = some II. Great MCAT = more II. Outstanding MCAT = even more II. [Assuming everything else is competitive.]

And to your last point, the cure for cancer is in your biochemistry book somewhere; it's just a matter of someone interpreting and understanding the information in such a way as to translate that raw data into clinical treatments.

 

[LizzyM]

While I'm sure there are some physician-scientists who can code...

You've misunderstood @libertyyne

Anyone and everyone can "code" which is medical-jargon for suffer a cardiac or respiratory arrest. If available the physician "runs the code" which is medical-jargon for resuscitation efforts (CPR, etc).

This has nothing to do with artificial intelligence or computer coding. There are some things, like resuscitating another human being, that can't be assigned to a robot or a computer.

 

[Lucca]

I think that AAMC had great hope that resetting MCAT and focusing on "500" as a passing grade and "good enough" would move people toward holistic review but just like board scores, some schools, like some specialties, are still number ******. Frankly, the sort of people who focus enormous resources on scoring 520+ are not the sort that I find desirable as medical students but I'm not the Dean.

I'm just curious as to the reason behind the disconnect between adcoms and the Dean of Admissions on issues like this. One would figure you have similar goals. Is this just a difference of opinion or is it rooted in having different goals as the dean vs the adcom?

 

[efle]

I'm just curious as to the reason behind the disconnect between adcoms and the Dean of Admissions on issues like this. One would figure you have similar goals. Is this just a difference of opinion or is it rooted in having different goals as the dean vs the adcom?

You'd think the dean would eventually notice that LizzyM never seems to recommend the 37+ scorers like the other adcom members do too !

 

[kb1900]

I'm just curious as to the reason behind the disconnect between adcoms and the Dean of Admissions on issues like this. One would figure you have similar goals. Is this just a difference of opinion or is it rooted in having different goals as the dean vs the adcom?

I would definitely imagine it's the latter. High avg stats make the school look good and attract high stats applicants. On the other hand, supposedly, a person with a 50th percentile MCAT can complete the rigor of medical school, so in that sense, ECs and other less tangible metrics should be weighted more heavily.

 

[begoood95]

You've misunderstood @libertyyne

Anyone and everyone can "code" which is medical-jargon for suffer a cardiac or respiratory arrest. If available the physician "runs the code" which is medical-jargon for resuscitation efforts (CPR, etc).

This has nothing to do with artificial intelligence or computer coding. There are some things, like resuscitating another human being, that can't be assigned to a robot or a computer.

I did miss that, and agree. Replacing such human aspects will be very difficult. However, to argue that it can't be done is another thing, and in fact I think it could be done given the right environment.

What would be the pros of such an "advancement"? If they outweighed the cons, then, eventually, it could probably happen. I think you're underestimating the potential for the advancement of technologies! There are robots that are engineered to be precise within 0.5 mm--I don't think it would be too difficult to engineer a robot that could resuscitate. Again, I think it's very far off into the future, and probably won't happen in our lifetime; I do, however, think it is feasible.

I stand by my assertion that in the future, many fields--including medicine--will be supplemented by if not wholly replaced by, in some aspects, a combination of AI and robotics.

addendum: and that make us uncomfortable, which is why many people don't/won't/can't accept it. That doesn't change the fact that the trend is there, and that it probably will happen sometime in the distant future.

 

[LizzyM]

You'd think the dean would eventually notice that LizzyM never seems to recommend the 37+ scorers like the other adcom members do too !

No, it isn't that at all. It is when some people who don't have the attributes we're looking for, other than mile high MCAT scores, are admitted over those who are just a bit lower (515 vs 520) but who have far more in the way of softer attributes. I think I think more like Mayo, if that makes sense.

 

[efle]

No, it isn't that at all. It is when some people who don't have the attributes we're looking for, other than mile high MCAT scores, are admitted over those who are just a bit lower (515 vs 520) but who have far more in the way of softer attributes. I think I think more like Mayo, if that makes sense.

If you're at the school I think you're at, I'd definitely agree, the 10th percentile marks for MCAT and GPA are absurd. Places like U of Washington, Mayo and UCLA are so much more inclusive and don't seem to suffer for it

 

[LizzyM]

I did miss that, and agree. Replacing such human aspects will be very difficult. However, to argue that it can't be done is another thing, and in fact I think it could be done given the right environment.

What would be the pros of such an "advancement"? If they outweighed the cons, then, eventually, it could probably happen. I think you're underestimating the potential for the advancement of technologies! There are robots that are engineered to be precise within 0.5 mm--I don't think it would be too difficult to engineer a robot that could resuscitate. Again, I think it's very far off into the future, and probably won't happen in our lifetime; I do, however, think it is feasible.

I stand by my assertion that in the future, many fields--including medicine--will be supplemented by if not wholly replaced by, in some aspects, a combination of AI and robotics.

Many years ago, I was waiting for someone in the corridor when an outpatient headed toward an appointment in the urology department coded right there in the hallway. Someone he had just spoken to saw him collapse and "called a code", summoning the cardiac team. They thundered down the stairwell and worked on the patient right there on the floor in the corridor. I don't see witnessed cardiac arrests in people with no prior history being handled by AI and robotics. It could be done but I doubt it would be.

 

[LizzyM]

If you're at the school I think you're at, I'd definitely agree, the 10th percentile marks for MCAT and GPA are absurd. Places like U of Washington, Mayo and UCLA are so much more inclusive and don't seem to suffer for it

If I were at the school you are thinking of, I'd be the pot calling the kettle black. There are a few number ****** in this club.

 

[begoood95]

Many years ago, I was waiting for someone in the corridor when an outpatient headed toward an appointment in the urology department coded right there in the hallway. Someone he had just spoken too saw him collapse and "called a code", summoning the cardiac team. They thundered down the stairwell and worked on the patient right there on the floor in the corridor. I don't see witnessed cardiac arrests in people with no prior history being handled by AI and robotics. It could be done but I doubt it would be.

In that context I agree; it's definitely much more difficult to imagine AI/robots rushing to the scene.

I think the advent of such technologies, though, will be very fruitful and beneficial to physicians' overarching mission. Because, in the end, we're (well, not me, but they...eventually me hopefully!) serving our patients and caring for their wellbeing: if we're honest, and stick to that mission, any technology that is evidenced to aid that mission we ought to embrace--despite the negative (economic) repercussions it may have.

 

[Lost In Transcription]

Thanks to @Lawper and @efle for constantly making these data analyses. This is the stuff people on Google come to SDN for.

 

[efle]

Come for the tables and graphs, stay for the neurotic toxicity