ArticleGMS journal for medical education2026
Position paper on the existing selection procedure in Germany for the degree program human medicine - interim evaluation after four years. Position paper of the student selection (ASA) in the DACH Association for Medical Education (GMA).
Article in GMS journal for medical education, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Four years after the entry into force of the new allocation rules, this position paper by the Committee on Student Selection of the GMA presents an initial interim assessment of the intended aspects of aptitude, public welfare considerations, and the social state principle, while also addressing equality-based admission. Academic achievement continues to be used as the primary selection criterion, even though it only moderately predicts success in the first phase of study and tends to favor both socioeconomically advantaged applicants and female high school graduates. HamNat and TMS results increase the predictive validity of the school-leaving grade and, in particular, improve the chance of admission for male applicants. Consideration of public welfare aspects is only partially achieved in view of the preferential allocation of study places to federal states with good medical care. Immediate measures in response to already apparent consequences should include: 1) a revision of the state treaty in order to i) reconcile individual fairness with a needs-based distribution of study places to state residents in the algorithm for the federal list based on school-leaving grades, and ii) enable the tracking of individual study trajectories to evaluate the effects of selection criteria and, if necessary, make adjustments; 2) examining whether a combination of HamNat and TMS further improves the predictive validity for study success compared to using only one of them; 3) giving the school-leaving grade less weight in the allocation of study places in favor of HamNat and/or TMS, to increase gender equality and favor socioeconomically disadvantaged applicants, thereby enhancing diversity within the student body; 4) ensuring that the criterion of fairness is examined and weighed in all test procedures considered in student selection. This could promote diversity in medical education and lead to a future medical profession that continues to adequately represent and serve the entire population.
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.