Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35349197›Full record

ArticleFASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology2022

Physician-scientists in the United States at 2020: Trends and concerns.

Howard H Garrison, Timothy J Ley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Establishment of the Society for the Advancement of Neuroscience and Psychiatry in Residency Research Education (Synapse): An Organization to Promote Research Training in Residency.Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Howard H GarrisonBethesda, Maryland, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9455-3527
Timothy J LeySection of Stem Cell Biology, Division of Oncology, Departments of Medicine and Genetics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9913-0520

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Physician-scientists comprise a unique and valuable part of the biomedical workforce, but for decades there has been concern about the number of physicians actively engaged in research. Reports have outlined the challenges facing physician-scientists, and programs have been initiated to encourage and facilitate research careers for medically trained scientists. Many of these initiatives have demonstrated successful outcomes, but there has not been a recent summary of the impact of the past decade of effort. This report compiles available data from surveys of medical education and physician research participation to assess changes in the physician-scientist workforce from 2011-2020. Several trends are positive: rising enrollments in MD-PhD programs, greater levels of interest in research careers among matriculating medical students, more research experience during medical school and rising numbers of physicians in academic medicine, and an increase in first R01 grants to physician-scientists. However, there are now decreased levels of interest in research careers among graduating medical students, a steady decline in MDs applying for NIH loan repayment program support, an increased age at first R01 grant success for physicians, and fewer physicians reporting research as their primary work activity: all of these indicators create concern for the stability of the career path. Despite a recommendation by the Physician-Scientist Workforce in 2014 to create "real-time" reporting on NIH grants and grantees to help the public assess trends, this initiative has not been completed. Better information is still needed to fully understand the status of the physician-scientist workforce, and to assess efforts to stabilize this vulnerable career path.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchPhysiciansCareer ChoiceHumansUnited StatesWorkforcephysician-scientistresearchtrainingworkforce

Identifiers

PMID35349197
PMCPMC9314812

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.