ArticlePloS one2026
Trends in MD-PhD representation and match outcomes across competitive specialties, 2007-2024.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Physician-scientists trained through MD-PhD programs play important roles in translational research. Despite the growing emphasis on research in residency applications, it remains unclear whether competitive specialties demonstrate a preference for MD-PhD graduates. This study evaluates differences in representation and match outcomes between MD-PhD and MD applicants across select specialties from 2007-2024, as well as the influence of specialty-level compensation and structural research infrastructure on outcomes. We analyzed data from the Association of American Medical Colleges (2015-2023), the National MD-PhD Program Outcomes Study (1975-2024), and the National Resident Matching Program's Charting Outcomes in the Match™ (2014-2024). Chi-square tests compared match rates between MD-PhD and all U.S. MD senior applicants across dermatology, orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, otolaryngology, plastic surgery, and diagnostic radiology. Negative binomial models measured changes in MD-PhD resident representation. Spearman rank correlations assessed associations between specialty-level physician compensation, NIH departmental funding, number of dedicated Physician-Scientist Training Programs, and MD-PhD outcomes. From 2015-2023, MD-PhD representation among residents remained stable with match rates varying by specialty and year. Dermatology and diagnostic radiology demonstrated strong match outcomes for MD-PhDs, whereas orthopedic surgery showed declining success for MD-PhD applicants. Neurosurgery, otolaryngology, and plastic surgery,had variable or inconsistent trends. Compensation and NIH funding were not significantly correlated with MD-PhD representation or match advantage. Physician-Scientist Training Programs availability showed the strongest associations with both outcomes but was not statistically significant given the small sample size. MD-PhD training does not consistently confer a match advantage in competitive specialties. The availability of research training infrastructure, compensation, and NIH funding may influence MD-PhD match success. Additionally, residency program preferences, such as clinical metrics, as well as MD-PhD applicant preferences may both affect match outcomes. Enhanced mentorship, specialty-specific exposure, and financial support may help support the physician-scientist pipeline across specialties.
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.