Go to The Journal of Clinical Investigation
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
  • Physician-Scientist Development
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • All ...
  • Videos
  • Collections
    • In-Press Preview
    • Resource and Technical Advances
    • Clinical Research and Public Health
    • Research Letters
    • Editorials
    • Perspectives
    • Physician-Scientist Development
    • Reviews
    • Top read articles

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • In-Press Preview
  • Resource and Technical Advances
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Research Letters
  • Editorials
  • Perspectives
  • Physician-Scientist Development
  • Reviews
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
Dual-degree pathways in the residency match: a comparative analysis of application behaviors and outcomes
Daniel C. Brock, Deborah D. Rupert, Toni Darville, Caroline S. Jansen, Elias M. Wisdom, Cynthia Y. Tang
Daniel C. Brock, Deborah D. Rupert, Toni Darville, Caroline S. Jansen, Elias M. Wisdom, Cynthia Y. Tang
View: Text | PDF
Physician-Scientist Development

Dual-degree pathways in the residency match: a comparative analysis of application behaviors and outcomes

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

Dual-degree medical students pursue additional training to prepare for careers in research, public health, and administration, but how these experiences influence residency application behaviors and outcomes are poorly understood. We analyzed 36,298 residency applicants from the Texas Seeking Transparency in Application to Residency (TexasSTAR) database spanning 2017–2023 to compare application, interview, and match patterns among single-degree MD applicants and those with MD-PhD, MD-MPH, MD-MBA, or MD-MSc degrees. Despite differences in academic metrics, application strategies, and interview rates, match rates were similar across degree groups. MD-PhD students applied to fewer programs but had the highest interview offer–to–application rate and matched at more prestigious programs based on Doximity rankings. Beyond traditional application metrics such as board scores, research productivity, grades, and honor society membership, strategies including away rotations, geographic preferencing, and program signaling were associated with increased interview offers and match success among all applicants but were less influential for dual-degree applicants. These findings suggest dual-degree applicants require specialized advising and evaluation.

Authors

Daniel C. Brock, Deborah D. Rupert, Toni Darville, Caroline S. Jansen, Elias M. Wisdom, Cynthia Y. Tang

×

Figure 1

Comparison of application volume, interview offers, and match rates of dual-degree applicants to MD-only applicants.

Options: View larger image (or click on image) Download as PowerPoint
Comparison of application volume, interview offers, and match rates of d...
(A–D) Number of applications submitted, rate of interview offer–to–applications submitted (%), match rate (%), and median Doximity rankings of matched programs. In D, lower values reflect higher-ranked programs. All applicants, including those listing transitional and preliminary years as their specialties, were included in analyses. Figures are shown as box-and-whisker plots. The horizontal line within each box indicates median, box edges denote interquartile range (IQR), and whiskers extend to 1.5 × IQR. Statistical significance was analyzed using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with FDR correction, comparing each dual-degree group with the MD-only group. Match rate comparisons were evaluated using Fisher’s exact test. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.001, ***P < 0.0001. Values below the horizontal axis labels indicate number of students per group.

Copyright © 2026 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN 2379-3708

Sign up for email alerts