First off, Applicant B is in the driver's seat. Board scores are fine, but being able to work with others and complete projects in a competitive academic environment is far more tangible -- especially when the scores are grouped closely. However, if those 5 publications are 6th author out of 10+ in a Nobel prize-winner's lab, who produces 20+ publications per year, then that opinion may change. 5 first-author publications would be a real winner, but that is rare of outside of very good PhD students.
IlDestriero is right -- no one gets accepted to the best residencies if no one wants to work with them, regardless of scores. The vetting of scores is just how programs whittle down the application list; at the end of the day the faculty really wants to work with people who do a good job taking care of their patients and who are not too difficult to place in faculty spots at the end of residency. The faculty is there year after year, and they don't want to be annoyed by socially impaired residents.
Remember the first line from the movie "Rounders": If you can't spot the sucker in your first half-hour at the table, then you are the sucker. People with sociopathic tendencies rarely have insight into the way they come across to others. Display empathy, humor, grace, and humility during your interview, and you will outperform your board scores. I interview applicants for a super competitive fellowship almost every year, and I always put way more stock into the interview performance than the paper application -- the paper just gets you in the door.
"
