More Than a Home Program: Institutional Deficits Hindering Medical Student Engagement in Plastic Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Choosing a specialty is a challenging, multifactorial decision for medical students, especially when considering competitive residencies like plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS). This study examines students’ exposure to the field as well as influential factors when considering a PRS career. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was distributed to U.S. and Canadian medical students interested in PRS to investigate attitudes, demographics, influential factors, and exposures. Results: Eighty-seven submissions were analyzed. Of those, 47.1% report being hesitant to fully pursue PRS—58.5% of whom cite a lack of resources to feel confident in matching. Between students with and without a home program, there were notable differences in resource availability. Considering positive factors of PRS, 80.5% highlighted patient impact, with 64.4% ranking it as a top motivator. Conversely, 70.1% identified the competitive nature as a deterrent, followed by residency duration and perception of the general public. Among PRS subspecialties, cosmetic and breast surgery had the highest levels of exposure. Overall, the most cited sources of exposure were self-research (45.5%) and shadowing (43.6%)—many times experienced before medical school. There were no significant differences between students with and without home programs in their interest in, exposure to, or knowledge of the included subspecialties. Conclusion: Given new heights for a successful match into PRS, early interest is crucial to begin research, foster supportive networks, and engage with PRS communities. This data can guide institutions and PRS organizations to enhance early exposures and targeted resources, ultimately making this field more equitable and accessible for all applicants.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".