Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42110211›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2026

Cutting Through the Noise: Radiation Oncology Applicant and Program Director Response to Signaling During Match 2025.

Mary T Mahoney, Stephanie O Dudzinski, Jordan D Fredette, Sylvia Choo, James Murphy, Steve E Braunstein, Stephanie E Weiss, Jillian R Gunther, Jeremy G Price, Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group (ROECSG) Undergraduate Medical Education Working Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in radiation oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Mary T MahoneyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Stephanie O DudzinskiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Jordan D FredetteDivision of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Sylvia ChooDepartment of Internal Medicine, Harbor University of California Los Angeles Medical Center, Torrance, California.
James MurphyDepartment of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Steve E BraunsteinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Stephanie E WeissDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Jillian R GuntherDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Jeremy G PriceDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group (ROECSG) Undergraduate Medical Education Working Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Geographic and program signals allow applicants to denote preferred regions and institutions for residency training. For the 2025 Match, program signals were introduced for radiation oncology (RO). We describe the experiences of RO applicants and program directors (PDs) with these novel program signals and geographic signals. Methods and Materials: Anonymous REDCap surveys were distributed to RO applicants and PDs after Match Day 2025. Consented participants answered questions on their perspectives and behaviors surrounding signals. Results: All surveyed applicants (71, 100%) used the newly offered program signals. Many applicants (46, 65%) and PDs (25, 63%) were aware of the RO professional society guidelines regarding signaling home and away rotations. Most informed applicants did not signal their home (16/23, 70%) or all away (21/37, 57%) rotations, despite awareness of guidelines. Likewise, informed PDs advised internally (17/24, 71%) and externally rotating applicants to not signal (14/24, 58%), also against guideline recommendations. Geographic signals continued to be widely used by RO applicants (59/71, 83%), and most PDs reported using geographic signals during the selection process (30/40, 75%). Interview invitation ( Conclusions: Program signals were universally used by surveyed RO applicants for the Match 2025, with most employing all tokens. Surveyed RO PDs reported signals influenced stages of residency recruitment, including interview invitations and ranking. Our data show that program and geographic signals may influence interview invites, but their impact on final match outcomes remains unclear. There was notably poor alignment of applicant and RO PD behaviors with the best practices regarding program signals as described by governing bodies, which should be addressed in future match cycles.

Identifiers

PMID42110211
PMCPMC13157057

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.