Athletes in medicine: A systematic review of performance of athletes in medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: As interest in medicine grows, admissions committees must review an increasingly competitive pool of medical school and residency candidates. Nearly all admissions committees have moved towards a holistic review, which considers an applicant's experiences and attributes in addition to academic metrics. As such, identifying nonacademic predictors of success in medicine is necessary. Parallels between skills necessary to succeed in athletics and in medicine have been drawn, including teamwork, discipline and resiliency. This systematic review synthesises the current literature to evaluate the relationship between participation in athletics and performance in medicine. METHODS: The authors searched five databases to conduct a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines. Included studies assessed medical students, residents or attending physicians in the United States or Canada and used prior athletic participation as a predictor or explanatory variable. The review examined associations between prior athletic participation and outcomes in medical school, residency and/or as an attending physician. RESULTS: Eighteen studies evaluating medical students (78%), residents (28%) or attending physicians (6%) met inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Twelve (67%) studies specifically assessed participants based on skill level, and five (28%) studies specifically assessed participants based on type of athletic participation (team versus individual). Sixteen studies (89%) found that former athletes performed significantly better than their counterparts (p < 0.05). These studies found significant associations between prior athletic participation and better outcomes in multiple performance indicators, including exam scores, faculty ratings, surgical errors and burnout. CONCLUSIONS: Current literature, although limited, suggests that prior participation in athletics may be a predictor of success in medical school and residency. This was demonstrated through objective scoring methods, such as USMLE, and subjective outcomes, such as faculty ratings and burnout. Specifically, multiple studies indicate that former athletes demonstrated increased surgical skill proficiency and decreased burnout as medical students and residents.
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 | 0.005 | 0.126 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".