ArticleCureus2025
A Decade in Print: The Evolving Academic Benchmark of Cardiology Fellowship Applications.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Applications of 3D Printing and Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare Management: A Narrative Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Research output has become an increasingly important criterion for competitive fellowship applications. While prior studies have quantified this trend in other specialties, the same has not been done for cardiology fellowships. Objective The primary objective of this study is to compare pre-fellowship research productivity among incoming cardiology fellows from the Classes of 2017 and 2027, and assess any significant changes in research output between the cohorts. The secondary objective is to evaluate the associations between degree type, institutional mobility, and geographic continuity and research output in the two cohorts. Methods This retrospective cohort study included cardiology fellows from two cohorts, 10 years apart, at 10 of the top 25-ranked United States cardiology programs selected from Doximity reputation rankings (Doximity, Inc., San Francisco, California, United States). Biographical data were obtained from publicly available fellowship program websites and Doximity profiles. PubMed was utilized to quantify research output prior to fellowship entry. The primary outcomes were the total number of publications, first-author publications, and cardiology-related ("in-specialty") publications. Results Among 155 fellows, the mean total number of publications increased from 2.67±3.22 in 2017 to 7.18±9.34 in 2027 (p<0.001). First-authorships increased from 1.35±2.25 to 2.54±3.30 (p<0.001), and in-specialty publications rose from 1.79±2.90 to 4.81±8.58 (p<0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed that the 2027 cohort was significantly more likely to have one or more publications (OR 10.19; p < 0.001). Degree type, institutional transitions, and geographic mobility were not significant predictors of the outcome. Conclusions Cardiology fellowship applicants in 2027 had markedly higher research output compared to the class of 2017. This trend mirrors patterns in other competitive specialties and indicates a growing emphasis on scholarly productivity in the selection processes. Subgroup patterns should be considered exploratory, given the small sample sizes. These findings also raise questions about equitable access to research opportunities and the potential emergence of barriers to scholarly output among aspiring cardiologists.
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.