ArticlePloS one2026
Mentorship across institutional contexts: Insights from biology and biomedical science undergraduates at two institutions.
Article in PloS one, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mentoring is essential for the development of biology and biomedical science (BBS) students, providing multiple benefits, including increased persistence in the STEM workforce. Although much of the literature on undergraduate mentoring focuses on mentorship in research experiences, there is a growing recognition that additional mentoring relationships can support BBS students, and that the institutional context can influence academic mentoring. Therefore, it is crucial to understand: 1) the mentoring relationships that undergraduate BBS students are engaging in, 2) where and through what sources they receive mentorship, 3) the level of support they receive from their mentors, and 4) whether these trends differ by institution. To address these questions, we developed a mentoring-focused questionnaire, drawing from the Process-Oriented Model of Mentoring and the College Student Mentoring Scale, and distributed the questionnaire at two public, R1 institutions. We found that most BBS students at both institutions reported having a mentor. However, many of these students reported that their mentor was outside their institution or a peer mentor, emphasizing the role multiple mentors may have in the development of BBS students. Students reported a high level of perceived mentoring support in two areas: Degree and Career Support and Existence of a Role Model. Perceived mentoring support also correlated weakly with two aspects of a mentoring relationship: interaction frequency (weak negative correlation) and relationship length (weak positive correlation). This study provides a large, quantitative and descriptive analysis of BBS student mentoring relationships. Based on our results, covering a plethora of mentoring relationships, we provide recommendations directed to mentors, mentees, and mentoring program administrators. Our study also reveals a lack of evaluative tools that can be used for comparison of mentoring outcomes across institutions. Future research should focus on the development of mentoring-centric survey instruments that can be applied broadly across undergraduate BBS populations.
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.