ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026
Transparency of Alpha Omega Alpha Selection Processes and Bias Mitigation Across US Medical Schools: A Cross-Sectional Mixed Methods Study.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMembership in the Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) honor society has long-term professional benefits, including improved match outcomes, yet racial and socioeconomic disparities in membership are well-documented. AOA selection processes across schools lack standardization, complicating understanding of the meaning of membership.
objectiveTo analyze transparency and methodology of AOA selection processes nationally and describe chapters' acknowledgement of potential for bias.
designResearchers performed a mixed methods cross-sectional study of medical school websites describing AOA chapter eligibility and selection in the United States (US) from October 2023 to April 2024. Descriptive statistics were generated to characterize quantitative data, and thematic analysis was performed to identify patterns within extracted quotes. SUBJECTS: LCME-accredited, MD-granting medical schools in the US. APPROACH: Researchers iteratively refined a data extraction form focused on AOA chapter status, eligibility and selection criteria, and quotes acknowledging potential for bias. Both thematic and content analyses were used with extracted quotes, while descriptive statistics were calculated for quantitative data. KEY
resultsOf 157 medical schools nationally, 131 (83%) had an active AOA chapter. Of these, 98 (75%) referenced eligibility and/or selection procedures. Personal characteristics (55%), review of accomplishments (51%), and an academic cut-off (18%) were the most common selection criteria. Twenty-seven schools (17% of all schools, including four with recently closed chapters) acknowledged potential for bias, and eight themes were generated to characterize bias acknowledgement.
conclusionsMost medical school websites described AOA evaluation methods, which were variable across schools. Few schools acknowledged potential for bias. Given these findings, future studies should explore the current interpretation of AOA membership with emphasis on bias mitigation at the residency level and beyond. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42091793What 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.