ArticleAcademic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry2026
A Comparison of Holistic Application Review versus Keyword Search for Residency Application Review.
Article in Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveApplication review is a lengthy time commitment. The objective of this study is to retrospectively compare the list of recommended applicants as generated by two processes: (1) faculty holistic review and (2) keyword search via Thalamus Cortex, residency application management software, to see how much overlap exists between the two strategies.
methodsFaculty at the training program completed the traditional application review performed by manual, holistic review of each eligible application, and submitted scores on their top 10-15 applicants to the program director (PD). The PD and associate program director (APD) input eight keywords into Cortex and sorted the applications by total keyword count.
resultsThere were 86 applicants selected for interview offers by holistic review, the typical process at this program. A second list of 86 applicants was generated by selecting those receiving the highest number of keywords, taking < 1 h to create. Applicants on both lists were compared; the authors found that 17 (19.8%) applicants appeared on both lists. Within the top ten applicants based on keyword count, three (30%) had been identified through holistic review.
conclusionsAlthough the keyword process took substantially less time, the percentage agreement is still low. The authors will not move to the keyword method for the next application season; however, they do plan to continue to refine the keywords and compare percent agreement in future years. By closely re-reviewing applicants who score highly on keyword search, this second process can supplement the manual holistic review.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40921917What 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.