Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40032721›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2025

Training Future Physician-Scientists in Social Sciences and Humanities.

David T Zhu

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

David T ZhuMedical Scientist Training Program, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1201 E Marshall St, Richmond, VA, 23298, USA. zhudt@vcu.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-0173-495X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

MD/PhD programs have traditionally prioritized the biomedical sciences, training physician-scientists skilled at advancing medical knowledge. Yet, with health disparities increasingly traced to social determinants of health (SDOH), a broader approach-one that integrates "non-traditional" fields such as the social sciences and humanities (SSH)-is essential. Significant challenges persist at three levels: (1) at the structural and systemic levels, where funding mechanisms like the NIH's Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) prioritize biomedical fields, limiting support for SSH fields; (2) at the institutional level, where curricula and resources remain narrowly aligned with biomedical timelines, leaving SSH trainees without adequate support; and (3) at the individual level, where the demands of SSH research often clash with the broader structure of MD/PhD programs, creating unique hurdles. Addressing these barriers requires coordinated reforms, including expanding MSTP programs' eligibility to include SSH fields and partnering with funding agencies and foundations to establish dedicated SSH funding. Medical schools could further support these students by developing cross-departmental SSH-integrated tracks with dedicated mentorship from SSH departments. Additionally, SSH-specific mentorship and community-building initiatives could reduce isolation and nurture a shared identity among SSH trainees. Bridging these gaps is paramount to making MD/PhD training for SSH students more inclusive and effective.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchHumanitiesPhysiciansSocial SciencesCurriculumHumansUnited States

Identifiers

PMID40032721
PMCPMC12343418

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.