How many pubs to be a competitive radio applicant?

[higayor]

I heard the big radio gunners applying this year got 50 pubs... 

Radio is the new optho

[Mathimatiquement]

Is it hard to stand out for radiology, rad-onc or nuclear medecine in QC?

[robclem21]

18 hours ago, higayor said:

I heard the big radio gunners applying this year got 50 pubs... 

Radio is the new optho

At least 100

 

No, 200!

 

No 300!

[unmatched2022]

Honestly, I don't think "number of pubs" is a factor that linearly scales with your odds of acceptance. Maybe the quality/novelty of your work, but really it's about who you work with and if they have power/sway in a committee decision. There is usually no ranking/scaling/rubric where more research = higher score or something. I could be wrong of course.

I would also say that 100+ pubs actually puts you at risk of seeming like you're only focused on research (which can be a negative to non-research heavy programs). On top of all of that... research in radiology is not easy, and not easy to pump out a ton of publications either, imo.

[NutritionRunner]

How on Earth can anyone have 50 pubs over four years of med school, unless the majority are in predatory journals? Or they received authorship for doing very little and are mid-author on a bunch of pubs they didn’t actually contribute to?  That number is just insane for anyone who isn’t a PI supervising groups of researchers and should be looked at very sceptically. 

[1D7]

I have seen students apply in excess of 50 research experiences (pubs, major presentations/posters, abstracts, case submissions). It's difficult for me to comprehend being so productive, but some people are made of something different I suppose.

 

I've yet to see 50+ actual publications though. Certainly the majority of applicants do not have that general level of research.

[deeman101]

On 5/16/2023 at 1:35 AM, 1D7 said:

I have seen students apply in excess of 50 research experiences (pubs, major presentations/posters, abstracts, case submissions). It's difficult for me to comprehend being so productive, but some people are made of something different I suppose.

 

I've yet to see 50+ actual publications though. Certainly the majority of applicants do not have that general level of research.

Having that much research is diminishing returns on your app. And it won't really cancel out deficiencies in other areas. Its better to be balanced, solid in all categories with no deficiencies than to be very strong in one category at the expense of others.

Also, real sees real. 50 pubs of B.S. will get you called out by real researchers. If its actually 50 quality pubs then thats bordering on associate prof level work in many departments. 

[anonymouspls]

1 pub nets you the most benefit. Everything after is diminishing returns following a Logarithmic curve.  Doesnt have to be radio related but that helps.

[rmorelan]

On 5/14/2023 at 8:09 AM, robclem21 said:

At least 100

 

No, 200!

 

No 300!

Ha, which leads to the obvious and stress inducing response everyone gives to that questions - "more".  

 

[rmorelan]

On 6/15/2023 at 10:04 AM, anonymouspls said:

1 pub nets you the most benefit. Everything after is diminishing returns following a Logarithmic curve.  Doesnt have to be radio related but that helps.

Yup. Definitely rapidly approaches pointless levels - particularly as you can be asked about these research papers in interviews. Even if you were fully engaged in all that research and all of those papers - can you really answer questions about them during an interview? 

[hero147]

On 5/14/2023 at 2:30 PM, NutritionRunner said:

How on Earth can anyone have 50 pubs over four years of med school, unless the majority are in predatory journals? Or they received authorship for doing very little and are mid-author on a bunch of pubs they didn’t actually contribute to?  That number is just insane for anyone who isn’t a PI supervising groups of researchers and should be looked at very sceptically. 

I have seen research groups add in medical students and they rotate who gets first author. So they end up with like 2-3 first author papers and like 10 other papers. I have never heard of 50 but I have seen like 25 over the course of medical school. 

And let's be honest, medical student or resident level research is never really any good. THe things that are published may be a bit better but I find that the majority of it is junk on top of junk (my research projects included). 

[rmorelan]

On 6/19/2023 at 4:55 PM, hero147 said:

I have seen research groups add in medical students and they rotate who gets first author. So they end up with like 2-3 first author papers and like 10 other papers. I have never heard of 50 but I have seen like 25 over the course of medical school. 

And let's be honest, medical student or resident level research is never really any good. THe things that are published may be a bit better but I find that the majority of it is junk on top of junk (my research projects included). 

Technically violates the overall policy for research but that isn't to say it doesn't happen.  Still people will see through it at some point. There is a cost as well to having a resident that is so focused on research - after all the job is clinical medicine in the end. 

[bottleofrealfruitsours]

Why gun for a specialty that will start to decline in ~5 years and will reach the rock bottom within 10~15 years with reduced market with increased imaging efficiency, pay cut with billing code changes, and saturation? Radiology is good now, but won't be by the time incoming students graduate and complete residency (or maybe even fellowship)

[anonymouspls]

11 hours ago, bottleofrealfruitsours said:

Why gun for a specialty that will start to decline in ~5 years and will reach the rock bottom within 10~15 years with reduced market with increased imaging efficiency, pay cut with billing code changes, and saturation? Radiology is good now, but won't be by the time incoming students graduate and complete residency (or maybe even fellowship)

I could make an argument that any given specialty will be in a worse spot 15 years from now. Literally the only exception that I can think of is maybe psychiatry. So why not do what you have some interest in and which aligns with your priorities, none of us can see the future.
 

People have been saying radiology is 10 years from dying for the past 15 years. When I was studying at uWaterloo I remember attending a presentation by google people (i went for the free lunch) who were saying radiology will be dead within 5 years …. This was in 2011.

[waterofbottle]

On 6/28/2023 at 11:11 PM, anonymouspls said:

I could make an argument that any given specialty will be in a worse spot 15 years from now. Literally the only exception that I can think of is maybe psychiatry. So why not do what you have some interest in and which aligns with your priorities, none of us can see the future.
 

People have been saying radiology is 10 years from dying for the past 15 years. When I was studying at uWaterloo I remember attending a presentation by google people (i went for the free lunch) who were saying radiology will be dead within 5 years …. This was in 2011.

You precisely cannot make that argument for GIM, ortho, neurology, psych, palliative care, geriatrics, rheumatology, derm, etc. Radiology, EM, and radonc are heading downwards, and anyone refusing to face this is on a lethal dose of copium.

I know that you have zero clue or working knowledge in ML because Imagine comparing the state of AI in 2011 and 2023.

[zxcccxz]

6 hours ago, waterofbottle said:

You precisely cannot make that argument for GIM, ortho, neurology, psych, palliative care, geriatrics, rheumatology, derm, etc. Radiology, EM, and radonc are heading downwards, and anyone refusing to face this is on a lethal dose of copium.

I know that you have zero clue or working knowledge in ML because Imagine comparing the state of AI in 2011 and 2023.

Not sure what you mean by EM is heading downwards... perhaps you mean that it is increasingly becoming burdened with primary care patients and an increased workload - which is true. Although if you mean that somehow EM is going to be taken over by AI, I think that's not a remotely accurate statement, despite it being a "pattern recognition" field like Rads/RO.

Also, as someone who was interested in Rad Onc when I was in medical school, the broad sentiment among physicians was that AI would make work easier for those practicing, allowing them to be more efficient/see more patients (an example is that contouring takes a lot less time now), but not actually take away jobs from practicing physicians. Perhaps over time, there would be reductions in residency positions as less physicians would be need for the same job, but again this wouldn't take work away from those already practicing. This is also supported by hard data. Have a look at the CARO workforce reports - although RO became an oversaturated field in the 2000s, there was a significant reduction in residency positions since, and there now a huge shortfall of physicians. Residents are getting jobs directly out of residency without a fellowship at major centres, and this is not project to change for at least the next 5+ years. 

I can't comment on rads but I imagine it might be similar.

Burnout in the ED has been so high after the pandemic that we've essentially lost a generation of physicians and allied health workers. Every hospital in my city is having trouble filling it's EM shifts. Some of the smaller towns in the province have actually had to shut down their ED at times because they cannot staff them, and send everyone with emergent issues to the city. EDs are trying to hire NPs or anyone they can find to meet manpower needs. The job market is so good that even fresh +1EM grads are getting jobs in major cities directly out of residency, which was not the case several years ago. So the idea that finding work is going to be difficult for new EM grads is also patently false. The CAEP workforce reports estimate that it will take a decade to train enough physicians to just replace what we lost during the pandemic. And that's not even accounting for all the additional physicians we will need to cover the patient needs resulting from the failure of primary care in this country and an aging population. 

[hero147]

11 hours ago, zxcccxz said:

Not sure what you mean by EM is heading downwards... perhaps you mean that it is increasingly becoming burdened with primary care patients and an increased workload - which is true. Although if you mean that somehow EM is going to be taken over by AI, I think that's not a remotely accurate statement, despite it being a "pattern recognition" field like Rads/RO.

Also, as someone who was interested in Rad Onc when I was in medical school, the broad sentiment among physicians was that AI would make work easier for those practicing, allowing them to be more efficient/see more patients (an example is that contouring takes a lot less time now), but not actually take away jobs from practicing physicians. Perhaps over time, there would be reductions in residency positions as less physicians would be need for the same job, but again this wouldn't take work away from those already practicing. This is also supported by hard data. Have a look at the CARO workforce reports - although RO became an oversaturated field in the 2000s, there was a significant reduction in residency positions since, and there now a huge shortfall of physicians. Residents are getting jobs directly out of residency without a fellowship at major centres, and this is not project to change for at least the next 5+ years. 

I can't comment on rads but I imagine it might be similar.

Burnout in the ED has been so high after the pandemic that we've essentially lost a generation of physicians and allied health workers. Every hospital in my city is having trouble filling it's EM shifts. Some of the smaller towns in the province have actually had to shut down their ED at times because they cannot staff them, and send everyone with emergent issues to the city. EDs are trying to hire NPs or anyone they can find to meet manpower needs. The job market is so good that even fresh +1EM grads are getting jobs in major cities directly out of residency, which was not the case several years ago. So the idea that finding work is going to be difficult for new EM grads is also patently false. The CAEP workforce reports estimate that it will take a decade to train enough physicians to just replace what we lost during the pandemic. And that's not even accounting for all the additional physicians we will need to cover the patient needs resulting from the failure of primary care in this country and an aging population. 

There are huge shortages in emerg right now. Job market is hot. But surprisingly the States had one of the most uncompetitive years for emerg because everyone thinks there's going to be a glut of emerg docs. Also NPs are starting to move into the field in droves. 

Honestly, I worry less about AI and more about midlevels. I think only surgical specialties are truly safe from midlevels at this point in time which is why I don't put psychiatry and emerg as robust as some of you put it. 

[waterofbottle]

21 hours ago, zxcccxz said:

Not sure what you mean by EM is heading downwards... perhaps you mean that it is increasingly becoming burdened with primary care patients and an increased workload - which is true. Although if you mean that somehow EM is going to be taken over by AI, I think that's not a remotely accurate statement, despite it being a "pattern recognition" field like Rads/RO.

Also, as someone who was interested in Rad Onc when I was in medical school, the broad sentiment among physicians was that AI would make work easier for those practicing, allowing them to be more efficient/see more patients (an example is that contouring takes a lot less time now), but not actually take away jobs from practicing physicians. Perhaps over time, there would be reductions in residency positions as less physicians would be need for the same job, but again this wouldn't take work away from those already practicing. This is also supported by hard data. Have a look at the CARO workforce reports - although RO became an oversaturated field in the 2000s, there was a significant reduction in residency positions since, and there now a huge shortfall of physicians. Residents are getting jobs directly out of residency without a fellowship at major centres, and this is not project to change for at least the next 5+ years. 

I can't comment on rads but I imagine it might be similar.

Burnout in the ED has been so high after the pandemic that we've essentially lost a generation of physicians and allied health workers. Every hospital in my city is having trouble filling it's EM shifts. Some of the smaller towns in the province have actually had to shut down their ED at times because they cannot staff them, and send everyone with emergent issues to the city. EDs are trying to hire NPs or anyone they can find to meet manpower needs. The job market is so good that even fresh +1EM grads are getting jobs in major cities directly out of residency, which was not the case several years ago. So the idea that finding work is going to be difficult for new EM grads is also patently false. The CAEP workforce reports estimate that it will take a decade to train enough physicians to just replace what we lost during the pandemic. And that's not even accounting for all the additional physicians we will need to cover the patient needs resulting from the failure of primary care in this country and an aging population. 

I ain't reading allat