Otolaryngology Resident Selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationship between National Residency Matching Program (NRMP) rank list position and future otolaryngology residency performance. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study. METHODS: Eight consecutive residency classes (starting 2001-2008; 4 residents/y) were reviewed. Three hundred and thirty-three applicants (40.6 applicants/y) were interviewed, and 316 (94.9%) were ranked. Residents matching with our program were divided 3 different ways: into quarters, thirds, and halves, based on their rank order. Correlation coefficients were obtained to compare resident rank number and rank group (quarter, third, half) to faculty evaluation, coresident evaluation, and in-service score. Chi-square tests were conducted comparing rank group to chief resident selection and annual teaching award. RESULTS: Resident NRMP rank number was not significantly correlated with faculty evaluation, coresident evaluation, or in-service exam score (-0.21 < r < 0.05; P > .28). There was also no significant correlation between resident quarter, third, or half rank group and faculty evaluation; coresident evaluation; or in-service exam score (-0.29 < r < 0.10; P > .13). Chi-square analysis found no relationship between resident rank group and chief resident (P > .35) or teaching award (P > .13) selection. CONCLUSIONS: Applicant rank number and rank group did not correlate with performance of this otolaryngology residency cohort as assessed by faculty evaluation, coresident evaluation, in-service exam score, or selection for chief resident or the annual teaching award. Resident selection committees should consider reallocating manpower hours from creating rank order to recruiting applicants and selecting interview candidates.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".