Results of the National Resident Matching Program for 2001
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The overall results of the 2001 National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) Main Match are very similar to those of the 2000 Match. For the 2001 Match, there were fewer applicants, improved specialty fill rates, increased applicant-to-specialty match rates, and continued movement away from applicants' choices in the generalist specialties. For the second year in a row, the Match experienced a decline in the number of applicants registering and participating in the Match. For the 2001 Match, 23,981 individuals participated by submitting rank-order lists, a decrease of 1,075 (4.3%) from the 25,056 who participated in the 2000 Match. The decline was less than in 2000, when 1,406, or 5.3% fewer applicants, participated than in 1999. Of the total of the 2001 participants, 18,354, or 76.5%, were matched to PGY-1 residency programs, and 89% of the positions available in the Match were filled (see Table 1 and Figure 1).Table 1: Participation in the 2001 National Resident Matching ProgramFigure 1: Numbers and percentages of PGY-1 applicants, by applicant group, that were matched in the National Resident Matching Program for 2001. (This figure was adapted from the Data Shot published in the April 2001 issue of the AAMC's Reporter.)The single largest factor in the decrease in applicants for 2001 was a continuing decline in the number of non—U.S.-citizen graduates of foreign medical schools registering and actively participating in the Match. The number of those graduates submitting rank-order lists for the 2001 Match numbered 5,116, compared with 6,287 in the 2000 Match. This decline of 1,171 represents an 18.6% decrease in this group of participants in one year, but is smaller than the 21.2% decline in the previous year. The number of U.S. citizen graduates of foreign medical schools declined by 170 active participants after increasing threefold in the five-year period from 1995 to 2000. Further examination of the number of the graduates of foreign medical schools who were certified by the Educational Commission on Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) and who registered and actively participated in the Match reveals a very different pattern from that found in 2000. In that year the drop in NRMP registrants who were foreign medical school graduates was almost exclusively in first-time applicants, with 5,741 first-time registrants participating. For 2001, the number was virtually unchanged, with 5,641 first-time registrants participating. A notable increase in the number of applicants from osteopathic schools of medicine and Fifth Pathway programs in the 2001 Match tempered the significant decrease caused by the drop in the number of graduates of foreign medical schools. A total of 1,241 applicants from osteopathic schools submitted rank-order lists, an increase of 7.9% over 2000. While the numbers are small, 70% (or 42) more Fifth Pathway Program participants submitted rank-order lists. For this year's Match, subgroups of applicants either increased their match rates for PGY-1 positions or remained within 1.0% of their 2000 match rates. U.S. seniors, graduates of Canadian schools, and earlier graduates of U.S. medical schools had virtually unchanged match rates. The U.S. senior rate was 93.7%, the Fifth Pathway match rate increased by 9.3%, the non-U.S. foreign graduate match rate increased by 6.3%, and the U.S. foreign graduate rate increased by 1.0%. The number of PGY-1 positions offered in the 2001 Match increased by 44 from the number in 2000 to 20,642, while the fill rate remained relatively unchanged at 88.9%. The fill rates by groups (types) of applicants are shown in Table 2. The biggest increase in PGY-1 positions offered was 107 in internal medicine preliminary programs, followed by 48 more positions in pathology. The largest decrease in positions in the 2001 Match was in family practice, with 109 fewer positions, followed by internal medicine, with 83 fewer positions, and internal medicine primary, with 69 fewer positions.Table 2: Positions Offered and Filled by Specialty and Applicant Type in the 2001 NRMPThe number of PGY-2 positions offered in the 2001 match increased by 112 over 2000 to 2,236, with 77 more positions in anesthesiology accounting for most of the increase. Of the 2,236 positions offered, 2,056, or 91.3%, were filled. The 2001 Match fill rate for PGY-2 positions continues the upward trend in PGY-2 fill rates experienced by the NRMP in recent years: the PGY-2 fill rates for 1996 and 2000 were 51.1% and 86.6%, respectively. In 2001 fewer than half (49.0%), or 6,627, of U.S. medical school seniors matched to first-year residency positions in the generalist specialties, a decrease of 2.4% from 2000. This continues a trend that began in the 1997 Match. The generalist specialties are defined as family practice, internal medicine, internal medicine—pediatrics, internal medicine primary, pediatrics, and pediatrics—primary. This classification does not include U.S. seniors matched to medicine preliminary positions. Six of these seven specialties had fewer U.S. seniors matched in the 2001 Match than in the 2000 Match. The exception is pediatrics, which rose from 1,638 to 1,705, a 4% increase. The number of applicants who entered the Match as members of couples increased from 1,016 in 2000 to 1,112 this year, a rise of 10.4%. Couples also continued to experience success in the Match, with match rate over 90% since 1984 and with a 2001 match rate of 94.6%, 0.7% less than in 2000. The two partners identify themselves as a couple to the NRMP and submit rank-order lists of identical length. The algorithm treats the two lists as a unit, matching the couple to the highest linked-program choices where both partners match to the programs listed. The vast majority of couples are U.S. seniors, and their match rates are very similar to those of their classmates, varying within one or two percentage points each year. Data describing the trends in positions offered and filled by U.S. seniors and other applicants during the past several years are published annually in the NRMP Results and Data, available by writing the National Resident Matching Program, attn: Membership and Publications Orders, 2450 N Street NW, Washington, DC 20037-1134, or by calling Publications at (202) 828-0416.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.011 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".