Diversity in MD–PhD Programs and Factors Affecting Admission and Completion Among Minoritized Groups: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To improve awareness of diversity in MD-PhD program applicants, matriculants, and graduates; facilitators and barriers to matriculation and/or completion among minoritized groups; and the effects of research experience programs on admissions processes aimed to increase representation of minoritized groups in MD-PhD programs. METHOD: The authors conducted a scoping review, searching EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science through December 21, 2021, for studies that contained data on the characteristics of MD-PhD learners and initiatives aimed to make the clinician-scientist trainee population more diverse. They excluded studies that had no primary data, were unavailable in English, and were not peer-reviewed. RESULTS: Of 4,369 articles identified, 16 met inclusion criteria. Studies conceptualized diversity inconsistently, including as sex/gender disparities (n = 11), race/ethnicity underrepresentation (n = 9), disability (n = 2), first-generation student (n = 1), visible minority (n = 1), Indigenous population (n = 1), and economic/social disadvantage (n = 1). Potential barriers to entering or continuing in an MD-PhD program among women and underrepresented ethnic minorities included the long program duration and lack of mentorship; potential facilitators included the flexibility of the dual-degree program. Limited data on high school, undergraduate, and postbaccalaureate research experience programs targeting underrepresented minorities suggest that they may help facilitate admission into MD-PhD programs. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this scoping review suggest that the diversity of MD-PhD students has been conceptualized in unitary, inconsistent terms, without addressing how different dimensions of diversity may intersect and impact MD-PhD admissions. Future studies should be explicit and intentional in defining "diversity" as it relates to their research questions, explore the impact of intersectionality, and systematically identify and address causal facilitators and barriers of entry to and completion of MD-PhD programs among minoritized groups.
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 | 0.021 | 0.127 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".