Does the Medical Student Performance Evaluation Change the Decision to Invite Residency Applicants?

Introduction: Although emergency medicine (EM) residency program directors (PD) have multiple sources to evaluate each applicant, some programs await the release of the medical student performance evaluation (MSPE) to extend interview offers. While prior studies have demonstrated that MSPE content is variable and selectively positive, no prior work has evaluated the impact of the MSPE on the likelihood to invite (LTI) applicants for a residency interview. This study aimed to evaluate how information in the MSPE impacted LTI, with the hypothesis that changes in LTI would be relatively rare based on MSPE review alone. Methods: We conducted a prospective, observational study analyzing applications to three EM residency programs during the 2019-2020 match cycle. Reviewers assessed applications and rated the LTI on a five-point Likert scale where LTI was defined as follows: 1 = definitely no; 2 = probably no; 3 = unsure; 4 = probably yes; and 5 = definitely yes. The LTI was recorded before and after MSPE review. A change in LTI was considered meaningful when it changed the overall trajectory of the applicant’s likelihood to receive an invitation to interview. Results: We reviewed a total of 877 applications with the LTI changing ≥1 point on the Likert scale 160 (18.2%) times. The LTI was meaningfully impacted in a minority of applications – 48 total (5.5 %, p\u3c 0.01) – with only 1 (0.11%) application changing from 1 or 2 (definitely/probably no) to 4 or 5 (probably/definitely yes) and 34 (3.8%) changing from 3 (unsure) to 4 or 5 (probably/definitely yes). Thirteen (1.5%) applications changed from 4 or 5 (probably/definitely yes) to 3 (unsure or probably/definitely no). Conclusion: Review of the MSPE resulted in a meaningful change in LTI in only 5.5% of applications. Given the time required for program leadership to review all parts of the variably formatted MSPEs, this finding supports a more efficient application review, where the PD’s focus is on succinct and objective aspects of the application, such as the Standardized Letter of Evaluation

Does the Medical Student Performance Evaluation Change the Decision to Invite Residency Applicants?

Introduction: Although emergency medicine (EM) residency program directors (PD) have multiple sources to evaluate each applicant, some programs await the release of the medical student performance evaluation (MSPE) to extend interview offers. While prior studies have demonstrated that MSPE content is variable and selectively positive, no prior work has evaluated the impact of the MSPE on the likelihood to invite (LTI) applicants for a residency interview. This study aimed to evaluate how information in the MSPE impacted LTI, with the hypothesis that changes in LTI would be relatively rare based on MSPE review alone.  Methods: We conducted a prospective, observational study analyzing applications to three EM residency programs during the 2019-2020 match cycle. Reviewers assessed applications and rated the LTI on a five-point Likert scale where LTI was defined as follows: 1 = definitely no; 2 = probably no; 3 = unsure; 4 = probably yes; and 5 = definitely yes. The LTI was recorded before and after MSPE review. A change in LTI was considered meaningful when it changed the overall trajectory of the applicant’s likelihood to receive an invitation to interview.  Results: We reviewed a total of 877 applications with the LTI changing ≥1 point on the Likert scale 160 (18.2%) times. The LTI was meaningfully impacted in a minority of applications – 48 total            (5.5 %, p< 0.01) – with only 1 (0.11%) application changing from 1 or 2 (definitely/probably no) to 4 or 5 (probably/definitely yes) and 34 (3.8%) changing from 3 (unsure) to 4 or 5 (probably/definitely yes). Thirteen (1.5%) applications changed from 4 or 5 (probably/definitely yes) to 3 (unsure or probably/definitely no). Conclusion: Review of the MSPE resulted in a meaningful change in LTI in only 5.5% of applications. Given the time required for program leadership to review all parts of the variably formatted MSPEs, this finding supports a more efficient application review, where the PD’s focus is on succinct and objective aspects of the application, such as the Standardized Letter of Evaluation

Does the Medical Student Performance Evaluation Change the Decision to Invite Residency Applicants?

Introduction: Although emergency medicine (EM) residency program directors (PD) have multiple sources to evaluate each applicant, some programs await the release of the medical student performance evaluation (MSPE) to extend interview offers. While prior studies have demonstrated that MSPE content is variable and selectively positive, no prior work has evaluated the impact of the MSPE on the likelihood to invite (LTI) applicants for a residency interview. This study aimed to evaluate how information in the MSPE impacted LTI, with the hypothesis that changes in LTI would be relatively rare based on MSPE review alone.  Methods: We conducted a prospective, observational study analyzing applications to three EM residency programs during the 2019-2020 match cycle. Reviewers assessed applications and rated the LTI on a five-point Likert scale where LTI was defined as follows: 1 = definitely no; 2 = probably no; 3 = unsure; 4 = probably yes; and 5 = definitely yes. The LTI was recorded before and after MSPE review. A change in LTI was considered meaningful when it changed the overall trajectory of the applicant’s likelihood to receive an invitation to interview.  Results: We reviewed a total of 877 applications with the LTI changing ≥1 point on the Likert scale 160 (18.2%) times. The LTI was meaningfully impacted in a minority of applications – 48 total            (5.5 %, p< 0.01) – with only 1 (0.11%) application changing from 1 or 2 (definitely/probably no) to 4 or 5 (probably/definitely yes) and 34 (3.8%) changing from 3 (unsure) to 4 or 5 (probably/definitely yes). Thirteen (1.5%) applications changed from 4 or 5 (probably/definitely yes) to 3 (unsure or probably/definitely no). Conclusion: Review of the MSPE resulted in a meaningful change in LTI in only 5.5% of applications. Given the time required for program leadership to review all parts of the variably formatted MSPEs, this finding supports a more efficient application review, where the PD’s focus is on succinct and objective aspects of the application, such as the Standardized Letter of Evaluation

Data for submission "Collagen organization of renal cell carcinoma differs between low and high grade tumors"

Sample: A human RCC tissue microarray (TMA) block was constructed by the Translational Research Initiatives in Pathology (TRIP) lab at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW-Madison). A section of 5um thickness was cut from the TMA block containing ~600um diameter tissue TMA cores. The section was then placed on a glass slide, stained with standard hematoxylin and eosin (H&E), and mounted under a #1.5 glass coverslip. Different tissue cores were from different patients. HE imaging: A bright field image of the entire H&E slide was collected with an Aperio CS2 Digital Pathology Scanner (Leica Biosystems) at 20x magnification. Each core of grade 1 and grade 4 was cropped to the size of 1520 pixels by 1520 pixels using Aperio ImageScope viewing software (Leica Biosystems). In total, 75 TMA cores were verified and annotated as grade 1 and 55 TMA cores as grade 4. Each core represents an individual patient. SHG imaging: All cores in this study were imaged with a custom built forward detection SHG microscope (Bredfeldt et al., 2014a). A MIRA 900 Ti: Sapphire laser (Coherent, Santa Clara, CA) was used to deliver 780 nm light to the sample using a 40x/1.25NA water immersion objective (Nikon, Melville, NY). No SHG signal was observed for five grade 1 cores and four grade 4 cores after navigating the system to at least 3 different fields of view on each core. Hence, in total, 70 TMA cores have SHG singal and annotated as grade1, 51 TMA cores as grade 4. To be noted, HE image and SHG image provided here are all original images and not co-registered.This repository contains datasets generated and/or analysed in the RCC project.This study was supported by the UW Department of Urology with additional funding from the UW Laboratory for Optical and Computational Instrumentation. We acknowledge funding support from the UW Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (ICTR) under award #UL1TR000427. We also acknowledge funding from NIH under grants R01 CA179556 (KWE) and U54DK104310 (KWE). The authors thank the UW Translational Research Initiatives in Pathology Laboratory, in part supported by the UW Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine and UWCCC grant P30 CA014520, for use of its facilities and services