ArticleFamily medicine2025
Objective Admissions Data and In-State Practice: What Can We Really Predict?
Article in Family 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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesDespite the widespread adoption of the holistic review initiative in medical school admissions, admissions committees continue to struggle with identifying applicant attributes that predict future practice location. This challenge has significant practical implications, particularly for institutions committed to addressing regional health care shortages.
methodsWe analyzed eight cohorts of applicants who matriculated between 2006 and 2013 and then completed residency. We used univariate and multiple regression models to identify applicant objective attributes linked to later in-state practice. Objective data available in applications included high school location, legal state of residence, Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT) scores, grade point average, college details, graduate school, race/ethnicity, and gender; these were compared by posttraining practice location.
resultsOf 509 graduates in practice, 212 (41.7%) were in-state. In-state graduates were older (P<.001), predominately underrepresented in medicine (42% vs 33%, P<.01), graduated from urban high schools (28% vs 18%, P<.05), attended in-state colleges (66% vs 55%, P<.05), and had lower MCAT scores (56th vs 67th percentile, P<.001). Regression analysis revealed that only age, urban high school, and MCAT score significantly contributed to the model (R 2=0.064, P=.004).
conclusionsThis study shows the limited value of applicant objective data to admissions committees in predicting future in-state practice. The findings emphasize the importance of a holistic admissions process and the value of considering subjective applicant data in efforts to predict future practice location. Additional research may help identify which subjective aspects of an applicant can assist admissions committees in this effort.
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.