ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
PREview scores and applicant conduct indicators: distinguishing current professional readiness from historical events.
Article in Frontiers in 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
Introduction: Professionalism is a foundational expectation for medical training, yet traditional academic metrics provide limited insight into applicants' professional readiness. The AAMC PREview® Professional Readiness Exam assesses how applicants evaluate and respond to realistic scenarios requiring effective professional behavior. Prior studies have not examined how PREview scores relate to misconduct indicators in medical school applications. This study compares PREview scores across applicants with and without AMCAS misconduct indicators, focusing on differences between contemporaneous professionalism concerns and historical misconduct after accounting for academic preparation. Methods: This quasi-experimental observational study analyzed national-level AMCAS applicant data from the 2021-2025 application cycles for U.S. MD-granting medical schools. Analyses were conducted separately for four misconduct indicators: felony conviction, misdemeanor conviction, prior institutional action, and active investigation during the application cycle. Kernel-based propensity score weighting was used to establish academic comparability based on MCAT score, undergraduate GPA, and application year and to estimate average treatment effects on the treated (ATT) for PREview scores. Results: After adjustment for academic covariates, applicants under active investigation scored an average of 1.48 PREview points lower than academically comparable applicants without an investigation. Associations between PREview scores and historical misconduct indicators were substantially smaller after adjustment, and estimates for felony convictions were imprecise due to rarity. Conclusion: After accounting for academic preparation, PREview scores were more strongly associated with contemporaneous professionalism concerns than with historical misconduct indicators. This pattern is consistent with the intended interpretation of PREview scores as a forward-looking assessment of applicants' responses to professionalism-relevant situations in the medical school admissions context.
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.