How closely does medical research have to align with chosen specialty like dermatology?

[DefNotaGOAT]

Med student here looking at potential research mentors. I'm exploring the dermatology field and am in talks with one mentor about melanoma. However, their research kind of delves far more into the brain metastasis of melanoma and really less about the skin side of melanoma. Of course, I will have to think about whether I'm truly interested in their research because I feel like nothing is worse than doing research that I'm not truly interested in, unless it's not finding a research mentor at all lol. But this made me curious about how closely related the topic has to be to my future preferred specialty, whatever I finally decide on. For example, would dermatology residencies count this melanoma research project as dermatology based even if it's more about the brain?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Maximus2020]

Answers may vary on here, but overall any research is research to a program director. Yes, it helps more to have specialty-specific, but it's not an end-all be-all. So, for your specific topic, I think it sounds great for derm as long as, like you said, you have interest in it.

 

[GoSpursGo]

This is a case where I think it's really important to have a career advice mentor (potentially separate from your research PI mentor) within your desired field. My general perception as an outsider is that derm is a particularly inbred field where they place a very high degree of importance on having actual derm research. I feel like you can make a case that this is "derm research," but I would run that by someone who actually is a dermatologist.

You might consider posting this question in the dermatology forum to get better answers (or I can move this thread for you )

 

[DefNotaGOAT]

This is a case where I think it's really important to have a career advice mentor (potentially separate from your research PI mentor) within your desired field. My general perception as an outsider is that derm is a particularly inbred field where they place a very high degree of importance on having actual derm research. I feel like you can make a case that this is "derm research," but I would run that by someone who actually is a dermatologist.

You might consider posting this question in the dermatology forum to get better answers (or I can move this thread for you )

Oooh I didn't know that there was a dermatology forum. That would be so helpful. Thank you for letting me know!

 

[Dr G Oogle]

I’m not a believer in “research is research” as a general rule. I often see people applying for urology and reviewing their apps I see there’s a lot of Ortho research, often there’s a good reason for the pivot, but since they are both competitive it’s not that big of a deal. It can come back and bite you if you’ve done a lot of research in a competitive specialty and then apply to something less competitive (and the reason is because you don’t have the stats for something more competitive). It may offend the sensibilities of the people in the less competitive specialty in that they might think you’re applying to the specialty as a constellation prize. This might become
More pronounced with with step 1 going p/f.

On the other hand I think it’s totally unreasonable to expect students to 1)know what their specialty choice will be in M1 and/or 2) make a life changing decision based on a 4-8 week rotation

 

[Lawpy]

I’m not a believer in “research is research” as a general rule. I often see people applying for urology and reviewing their apps I see there’s a lot of Ortho research, often there’s a good reason for the pivot, but since they are both competitive it’s not that big of a deal. It can come back and bite you if you’ve done a lot of research in a competitive specialty and then apply to something less competitive (and the reason is because you don’t have the stats for something more competitive). It may offend the sensibilities of the people in the less competitive specialty in that they might think you’re applying to the specialty as a constellation prize. This might become
More pronounced with with step 1 going p/f.

On the other hand I think it’s totally unreasonable to expect students to 1)know what their specialty choice will be in M1 and/or 2) make a life changing decision based on a 4-8 week rotation

What’s stopping applicants from not including research in competitive specialties in ERAS when applying to less competitive fields?

 

[GoSpursGo]

What’s stopping applicants from not including research in competitive specialties in ERAS when applying to less competitive fields?

Because that’s a horrible idea.

Pubs are forever on your CV. In this case the problem isn’t that they hurt you but rather that they are insufficient for getting a derm spot.

 

[Dr G Oogle]

What’s stopping applicants from not including research in competitive specialties in ERAS when applying to less competitive fields?

Nothing but if someone was shooting for urology and then couldn’t get the stats and is applying to something like obgyn as a back up, it would be obvious that that is not the first choice of specialty and might hurt that applicant. If their stats were good and they just switched specialties it’s unlikely to matter

 

[Lawpy]

Because that’s a horrible idea.

Pubs are forever on your CV. In this case the problem isn’t that they hurt you but rather that they are insufficient for getting a derm spot.

Nothing but if someone was shooting for urology and then couldn’t get the stats and is applying to something like obgyn as a back up, it would be obvious that that is not the first choice of specialty and might hurt that applicant. If their stats were good and they just switched specialties it’s unlikely to matter

I guess i’m still confused so let me clarify. If someone originally applying for urology decided to switch over to obgyn (or in more extreme case FM), are they really obligated to still list all the uro pubs? Yes pubs are forever in CV, but that’s CV and not ERAS. Matching is critical and if uro pubs hurt someone’s chances in a specialty due to the fears of being viewed as a backup, it doesn’t make sense to list those pubs in ERAS

Why unnecessarily handicap yourself when you can control what goes in ERAS? The same goes for letters: drop everything uro related and focus on getting letters from attendings in desired specialty.

The idea is to make it less obvious to specialties that they’re being used as a backup. It doesn’t make sense to list the competitive specialty pubs when applying to less competitive specialties and risk being viewed negatively

 

[TelemarketingEnigma]

I guess i’m still confused so let me clarify. If someone originally applying for urology decided to switch over to obgyn (or in more extreme case FM), are they really obligated to still list all the uro pubs? Yes pubs are forever in CV, but that’s CV and not ERAS. Matching is critical and if uro pubs hurt someone’s chances in a specialty due to the fears of being viewed as a backup, it doesn’t make sense to list those pubs in ERAS

Why unnecessarily handicap yourself when you can control what goes in ERAS? The same goes for letters: drop everything uro related and focus on getting letters from attendings in desired specialty.

The idea is to make it less obvious to specialties that they’re being used as a backup. It doesn’t make sense to list the competitive specialty pubs when applying to less competitive specialties and risk being viewed negatively

any pubs = demonstrated ability to do research and successfully produce end products

I think the only way uro pubs would hurt someone applying to something like IM is if they can't explain why they like and are applying IM. No matter whether you have the research or not, you do need to be able to explain your interest in a field

I have a herpetology paper on my application but I have a very clear story for why my specialty, I don't think anyone is confused that I'm actually trying to become a veterinarian

 

[Lawpy]

any pubs = demonstrated ability to do research and successfully produce end products

I think the only way uro pubs would hurt someone applying to something like IM is if they can't explain why they like and are applying IM. No matter whether you have the research or not, you do need to be able to explain your interest in a field

I have a herpetology paper on my application but I have a very clear story for why my specialty, I don't think anyone is confused that I'm actually trying to become a veterinarian

Yeah, so if someone has say 7 uro pubs and only 1 IM pub and is applying to IM, i think it’d be better to drop the uro pubs from ERAS (or maybe keep like 1 of them to show how specialty interests changed) and craft the narrative mainly to IM.

Papers are permanent but there’s no reason to list everything on ERAS if they hurt the narrative

 

[operaman]

Field specific is definitely important. Part is demonstrating interest and commitment to research in the field, but also the connections you make with key faculty. It’s the going to meetings with your mentor and getting introduced to faculty at other programs before you even apply.

The melanoma angle is solid though in that it’s relevant, but you’ll want additional papers that are more mainline derm. Some faculty will see any productive research as a plus, but others will wonder why you don’t have more output in the field you’re planning on devoting your career to.

I see no value in hiding publications from other fields. Not only will programs pubmed search you anyhow, but it’s just too easy to explain a change in fields. Lots of people come in thinking a surgical field and then decide against it and go IM or something else. Sure, nobody wants to be your backup plan, but that’s pretty easy to overcome with a good story and good letters.

 

[Lawpy]

I see no value in hiding publications from other fields. Not only will programs pubmed search you anyhow, but it’s just too easy to explain a change in fields.

I mean if they pubmed search and still feel bad, that’s on them. But why voluntarily give out that info on ERAS and potentially risk making programs feel like they’re backup when it’s not needed?

Agreed having a good narrative is key but I just don’t get the idea of voluntarily divulging all pubs on ERAS. ERAS is not the same as CV

 

[Dr G Oogle]

I guess i’m still confused so let me clarify. If someone originally applying for urology decided to switch over to obgyn (or in more extreme case FM), are they really obligated to still list all the uro pubs? Yes pubs are forever in CV, but that’s CV and not ERAS. Matching is critical and if uro pubs hurt someone’s chances in a specialty due to the fears of being viewed as a backup, it doesn’t make sense to list those pubs in ERAS

Why unnecessarily handicap yourself when you can control what goes in ERAS? The same goes for letters: drop everything uro related and focus on getting letters from attendings in desired specialty.

The idea is to make it less obvious to specialties that they’re being used as a backup. It doesn’t make sense to list the competitive specialty pubs when applying to less competitive specialties and risk being viewed negatively

Sure, totally agree with that. I think the OP question was can it hurt to do research in one field and apply to another, and the general reply was “research is research” which means put it in ERAS. But I wanted to highlight that there is nuance to that statement. Especially since research will, for better or worse, become more important.

 

[GoSpursGo]

Yeah, so if someone has say 7 uro pubs and only 1 IM pub and is applying to IM, i think it’d be better to drop the uro pubs from ERAS (or maybe keep like 1 of them to show how specialty interests changed) and craft the narrative mainly to IM.

Papers are permanent but there’s no reason to list everything on ERAS if they hurt the narrative

I think you’re misunderstanding. Papers outside your field don’t actively hurt you, and indeed have some value because as others have said it demonstrates your ability to be productive academically. It’s just that for these particularly competitive specialties, and derm specifically, you do need to have in-specialty pubs. It would be a mistake to omit a major accomplishment like a pub, because while 10 derm papers>5 derm+5 IM, 5 derm+5 IM is still >>5 derm

 

[Lawpy]

I think you’re misunderstanding. Papers outside your field don’t actively hurt you, and indeed have some value because as others have said it demonstrates your ability to be productive academically. It’s just that for these particularly competitive specialties, and derm specifically, you do need to have in-specialty pubs. It would be a mistake to omit a major accomplishment like a pub, because while 10 derm papers>5 derm+5 IM, 5 derm+5 IM is still >>5 derm

Oh whoops i see the disconnect, this makes sense with regards to derm (or another competitive specialty)

I was getting hung up on another point of changing from a competitive specialty to less competitive/noncompetitive specialty that may feel like it’s being used as a backup. In these instances, i was thinking listing papers from the competitive specialty would be a bad move and can hurt

But the earlier point on having good letters and a good narrative for why that specialty is a critical one for any field

 

[futureapppsy2]

Yeah, so if someone has say 7 uro pubs and only 1 IM pub and is applying to IM, i think it’d be better to drop the uro pubs from ERAS (or maybe keep like 1 of them to show how specialty interests changed) and craft the narrative mainly to IM.

Papers are permanent but there’s no reason to list everything on ERAS if they hurt the narrative

Like others have said, the skills needed to successfully publish are pretty universal across specialties and even clinical/science fields, so having a larger number of pubs provides stronger evidence for the argument that you know how to do publishable research and successfully shepherd it through the publication process (which is a skillset in and of itself).

 

[TelemarketingEnigma]

the other thing that hasn't really been mentioned is that most of the "back up" type specialties (IM, FM) are broad enough that sub-specialty research will still be very relevant to many of the patients you'll be caring for. sure the super surgical aspects won't translate, but IM/FM docs care for many patients with urological problems and other subspecialty issues

 

[DefNotaGOAT]

OP here. Not gonna lie, I got very confused reading the replies and wondered how my question got here....but it's probably because I'm super brain dead from finals week. Still got some very good advice and viewpoints, so thank you everyone!

Ultimately, I think I am going to take on the melanoma research project as throughout the school year, and then I'll be doing some other more derm focused research for the summer or possibly take a research year. With Step 1 going pass/fail, I reckon Step 2, research, and clinical grades will become more important. I am just a tad worried about not getting honors in one of my pre-clinical courses, which is why I'm trying to get the right research to boost that up. Fortunately, if I end up not liking derm, I do have some IM research.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

constellation prize

Sometimes it’s just not in the stars.

 

[Browns99]

Yeah, so if someone has say 7 uro pubs and only 1 IM pub and is applying to IM, i think it’d be better to drop the uro pubs from ERAS (or maybe keep like 1 of them to show how specialty interests changed) and craft the narrative mainly to IM.

Papers are permanent but there’s no reason to list everything on ERAS if they hurt the narrative

You're dead wrong on this advice.

 

[Browns99]

Absolutely the wrong advice given here, albeit the poster's opinion....while one piece of advice can never fit all situations, one should probably never omit pubs.

 

[Lawpy]

You're dead wrong on this advice.

How?

Absolutely the wrong advice given here, albeit the poster's opinion....while one piece of advice can never fit all situations, one should probably never omit pubs.

Really? So you’re suggesting someone who was initially nsgy bound but decided to switch to something like psych to list all the nsgy pubs they had?

I mean hey, it’s personally no loss to me if SDN insists to list everything but i don’t understand the thought process behind it

 

[Dr G Oogle]

Sometimes it’s just not in the stars.

Outstanding

 

[Browns99]

How?

Really? So you’re suggesting someone who was initially nsgy bound but decided to switch to something like psych to list all the nsgy pubs they had?

I mean hey, it’s personally no loss to me if SDN insists to list everything but i don’t understand the thought process behind it

Doesn't matter, in my opinion, I'd rather show my commitment to research and explain why I may have gone in a different direction then leaving out my pubs, but hey, it's always up to the applicant and why I implore people to listen to their mentors, school advisors, etc. and not take advice on SDN as gospel, whether yours or mine.

 

[Dr G Oogle]

Sometimes it’s just not in the stars.

Outstanding

 

[GoSpursGo]

How?

Really? So you’re suggesting someone who was initially nsgy bound but decided to switch to something like psych to list all the nsgy pubs they had?

I mean hey, it’s personally no loss to me if SDN insists to list everything but i don’t understand the thought process behind it

Yes, we’re suggesting that. A pub is worth more than some marginal imagined narrative.

If you’re so confident, then go ahead and leave some of your pubs off if you ever are applying through ERAS. But you’re giving horrible advice that would actively harm peoples’ residency applications if they were foolish enough to follow it.

 

[Lawpy]

Yes, we’re suggesting that. A pub is worth more than some marginal imagined narrative.

If you’re so confident, then go ahead and leave some of your pubs off if you ever are applying through ERAS. But you’re giving horrible advice that would actively harm peoples’ residency applications if they were foolish enough to follow it.

For the record, the “advice” is actually based on a question on a scenario where narrative actually matters since listing pubs from a competitive specialty can make less competitive specialties being viewed as a backup which can have detrimental effects on candidacy. I don’t get the blind SDN blanket recommendations without considering the nuances involved and dismissing the narrative as marginal or imagined is frankly absurd, when it’s clear narratives do play a major role across specialties especially when too many applications are involved and sound the same

But i agree with the earlier poster that the gold standard as with everything is to listen to your school’s advisers and mentors. They know the exact details involved better than any of us on SDN

 

[GoSpursGo]

For the record, the “advice” is actually based on a question on a scenario where narrative actually matters since listing pubs from a competitive specialty can make less competitive specialties being viewed as a backup which can have detrimental effects on candidacy. I don’t get the blind SDN blanket recommendations without considering the nuances involved and dismissing the narrative as marginal or imagined is frankly absurd, when it’s clear narratives do play a major role across specialties especially when too many applications are involved and sound the same

But i agree with the earlier poster that the gold standard as with everything is to listen to your school’s advisers and mentors. They know the exact details involved better than any of us on SDN

Lawpy, could you please let us know what your actual experience in this arena is? Because everyone in this thread who actually has experience applying for residency has said that the value of publications greatly outweighs the value of a spotless narrative. So perhaps it would be beneficial for the OP and the rest of us if you would explain what experience has led you to such a different opinion.

 

[Lawpy]

Lawpy, could you please let us know what your actual experience in this arena is? Because everyone in this thread who actually has experience applying for residency has said that the value of publications greatly outweighs the value of a spotless narrative. So perhaps it would be beneficial for the OP and the rest of us if you would explain what experience has led you to such a different opinion.

Did you miss the context of this discussion?

I’m not a believer in “research is research” as a general rule. I often see people applying for urology and reviewing their apps I see there’s a lot of Ortho research, often there’s a good reason for the pivot, but since they are both competitive it’s not that big of a deal. It can come back and bite you if you’ve done a lot of research in a competitive specialty and then apply to something less competitive (and the reason is because you don’t have the stats for something more competitive). It may offend the sensibilities of the people in the less competitive specialty in that they might think you’re applying to the specialty as a constellation prize. This might become
More pronounced with with step 1 going p/f.

Look, i get the blanket SDN recommendation of listing all papers, maximizing Step scores, getting all honors, getting strong letters etc to maximize chances of matching into desired specialty. But such suggestions miss the nuances that actually matter, and people have in fact gotten burned repeatedly for blindly following blanket recommendations. I was thinking based on the above that omitting papers can alleviate the above problems, but that gets misinterpreted into another blanket restatement that omitting any papers is a good idea, when that’s not what i’m saying. Nor was what i was suggesting an advice. It’s an attempt to try to solve a problem that likely only affects a small but not insignificant fraction of residency applicants

 

[GoSpursGo]

Did you miss the context of this discussion?



Look, i get the blanket SDN recommendation of listing all papers, maximizing Step scores, getting all honors, getting strong letters etc to maximize chances of matching into desired specialty. But such suggestions miss the nuances that actually matter, and people have in fact gotten burned repeatedly for blindly following blanket recommendations. I was thinking based on the above that omitting papers can alleviate the above problems, but that gets misinterpreted into another blanket restatement that omitting any papers is a good idea, when that’s not what i’m saying. Nor was what i was suggesting an advice. It’s an attempt to try to solve a problem that likely only affects a small but not insignificant fraction of residency applicants

This did not address my question, but rather it just repeated the points you've already made

 

[Lawpy]

This did not address my question, but rather it just repeated the points you've already made

No it did address your question:

So perhaps it would be beneficial for the OP and the rest of us if you would explain what experience has led you to such a different opinion.

And i linked that other post that served as the context for the discussion, since it’s evident that context is being ignored and my posts are being read in a vacuum and regularly misinterpreted

I have nothing to lose and everything to gain by following the SDN blanket recommendations btw. If you have answers to the above scenario that i quoted that doesn’t involve omitting papers, i’m all ears since clearly that proposal is being widely condemned even when presented in a very specific context

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

No it did address your question:


And i linked that other post that served as the context for the discussion, since it’s evident that context is being ignored and my posts are being read in a vacuum and regularly misinterpreted

I have nothing to lose and everything to gain by following the SDN blanket recommendations btw. If you have answers to the above scenario that i quoted that doesn’t involve omitting papers, i’m all ears since clearly that proposal is being widely condemned even when presented in a very specific context

You ignored the question and just reposted things from the thread. Nobody is reading your posts in a vacuum and ignoring context. They literally said that it is better to include all pubs and not to worry about what the research might say about your interests.

 

[GoSpursGo]

No it did address your question:


And i linked that other post that served as the context for the discussion, since it’s evident that context is being ignored and my posts are being read in a vacuum and regularly misinterpreted

I have nothing to lose and everything to gain by following the SDN blanket recommendations btw. If you have answers to the above scenario that i quoted that doesn’t involve omitting papers, i’m all ears since clearly that proposal is being widely condemned even when presented in a very specific context

I thought I was being pretty clear that I was looking for your own experience that allowed you to speak so insistently about your advice Because while the person you quoted mentioned the potential problem, nobody except you is seriously suggesting omitting pubs.

The solution is obvious and has been said before in this thread. You include the pubs and explain that you had a change of heart regarding specialty during school, which is very common. This isn’t “SDN groupthink,” this is based on Personal experience as a primary research faculty as is the feedback from others on this thread. That doesn’t mean I’m necessarily right, and I’m happy to admit when I’m wrong. But in this case I am certain That omitting pubs would be damaging to anyone’s residency app, which is why I’m being so forceful here.

 

[Dr G Oogle]

It seems my post caused a lot of consternation. Just to simplify, put whatever research you want. Just be aware in certain instances if you’re research is in a competitive specialty and you’re applying to a less or noncompetitive specialty AND your stats are not good for the more competitive specialty it will raise some eyebrows regarding your desire to be in the specialty for which you are interviewing. It does not necessarily mean you won’t match, but we have dropped people lower on the list in obgyn when they had a lot of uro research but not uro stats and no compelling story for the change of heart. This is anecdotal at best.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

and no compelling story for the change of heart.

I think this is the key. If you’re very clearly just using it as a fall back specialty, then yeah it might hinder you a bit. But even if it was because of not having the stats, if you can provide a good story then research is research.

 

[TelemarketingEnigma]

i also gotta say, you hopefully should be proud of the work you put into the research even if you ultimately go a different direction for your specialty. I have several pubs that do not directly relate to my specialty of choice, but the process of the research was a valuable experience that I put a lot of hard work into. I want that hard work recognized on my application. If the pubs are such complete fluff that you’re not proud enough of them to include, then maybe it’s fair to leave them off for other reasons…

I agree that the issue is not so much one of research being on your app but one of being able to tell your story well. If you liked Uro and switched fully to ob/gyn, there’s gotta be something you liked about the new specialty choice. So you should be able to make that clear in your application, to convince the reader of your choice. Even if you’re using ob/Gyn as a back up for if you don’t match Uro, you can write a separate personal statement for the different specialties.

 

[Lawpy]

I thought I was being pretty clear that I was looking for your own experience that allowed you to speak so insistently about your advice Because while the person you quoted mentioned the potential problem, nobody except you is seriously suggesting omitting pubs.

The solution is obvious and has been said before in this thread. You include the pubs and explain that you had a change of heart regarding specialty during school, which is very common. This isn’t “SDN groupthink,” this is based on Personal experience as a primary research faculty as is the feedback from others on this thread. That doesn’t mean I’m necessarily right, and I’m happy to admit when I’m wrong. But in this case I am certain That omitting pubs would be damaging to anyone’s residency app, which is why I’m being so forceful here.

It seems my post caused a lot of consternation. Just to simplify, put whatever research you want. Just be aware in certain instances if you’re research is in a competitive specialty and you’re applying to a less or noncompetitive specialty AND your stats are not good for the more competitive specialty it will raise some eyebrows regarding your desire to be in the specialty for which you are interviewing. It does not necessarily mean you won’t match, but we have dropped people lower on the list in obgyn when they had a lot of uro research but not uro stats and no compelling story for the change of heart. This is anecdotal at best.

I think this is the key. If you’re very clearly just using it as a fall back specialty, then yeah it might hinder you a bit. But even if it was because of not having the stats, if you can provide a good story then research is research.

i also gotta say, you hopefully should be proud of the work you put into the research even if you ultimately go a different direction for your specialty. I have several pubs that do not directly relate to my specialty of choice, but the process of the research was a valuable experience that I put a lot of hard work into. I want that hard work recognized on my application. If the pubs are such complete fluff that you’re not proud enough of them to include, then maybe it’s fair to leave them off for other reasons…

I agree that the issue is not so much one of research being on your app but one of being able to tell your story well. If you liked Uro and switched fully to ob/gyn, there’s gotta be something you liked about the new specialty choice. So you should be able to make that clear in your application, to convince the reader of your choice. Even if you’re using ob/Gyn as a back up for if you don’t match Uro, you can write a separate personal statement for the different specialties.

Ok, duly noted. Apologies for the confusion/frustration and agreed omitting papers is a bad idea and having a story for why specialty change is important.