ArticlePloS one2022
The Molecular Medicine PhD program alumni perceptions of career preparedness.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing Pathology Knowledge for Biomedical Scientists: Pilot Cohort Study of a Comprehensive Self-Paced Tutorial for Bridging Fundamental Concepts With Translational Applications.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Granting access: Development of a formal course to demystify and promote predoctoral fellowship applications for graduate students.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Over the past two decades, graduate programs have sought to meet the rising need for cross-disciplinary biomedical and translational research training; however, among program evaluation efforts, little is known about student satisfaction with these programs. We report survey results aimed at assessing the overall satisfaction of Molecular Medicine (MolMed) PhD program graduates with their training program and subsequent employment, their research productivity since graduation, and the program elements important for entering their diverse career choices. The survey consisted of quantitative and qualitative instruments and was deployed in June 2020 via email to 45 alumni who had graduated at least two years prior. Investigators assessed mean and median Likert scale data and they conducted a qualitative content analysis on all open-ended narrative survey data using inductive analysis to identify themes. Of the 45 contacted, 26 PhD graduates of the MolMed program responded to the survey. Overall, graduates felt the MolMed curriculum prepared them well for their current career (mean 3.4 out a 4-point Likert scale); and, knowing what they know now, they would likely pursue a PhD degree again (mean 3.7 out of 4). Four overarching themes emerged from the content analysis of the narrative survey data: curriculum and other training experiences; professional skills; importance of a strong advisor/mentor; and, networking and career development. Overall, alumni were satisfied with their MolMed Program experience. They found the curriculum to be strong and relevant, and they believed that it prepared them well for their careers. There may be opportunities to embed additional skills into the curriculum, and the program should continue to offer a strong mentoring and clinical experience, as well as train students for diverse career trajectories.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.