ArticleJournal of graduate medical education2026
More Signals, Fewer Applications: Calibrating Preference Signaling for Residency Application.
Article in Journal of graduate 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Preference signaling in the residency application process was introduced in the 2021 application cycle and, as of the 2026 residency Match cycle, is used by 27 specialties. Originally intended to help applicants indicate genuine interest in programs, its role has expanded to include mitigating overapplication. Objective: To assess how the number of signals allotted influences application numbers across specialties. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of US Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) data from 22 signaling specialties between 2022 and 2026. Specialties were grouped by number of signals allotted: high (≥20), medium (8-19), low (≤7). The primary outcome was change in average applications per applicant within specialty. The secondary outcome was estimated financial impact using the ERAS tiered fee schedule. Results: Among 70 111 applicants across 22 specialties (high n=6; medium n=8; low n=8), high-signal specialties uniformly reduced applications per applicant (mean, -28.3; range, -47.4 to -2.15). Medium and low tiers showed mixed effects, with an increase in applications per applicant in several specialties. Overall, signaling was associated with an estimated net cost reduction of $7,387,754 across all participating specialties. All high-signal specialties generated cost reduction ($2,991,059 total), whereas 8 medium- and low-signal specialties incurred net cost increases. Conclusions: Substantial reductions in application volume and costs have occurred following implementation of preference signaling, with the high-signal approach reliably leading to a decrease in applications submitted.
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.