What the research profiles of this year's 6 incoming residents actually look like, by specialty relevance, authorship, and notable activity, not just publication count.
Source: CaRMS program descriptions
Selection weights
Selection weights not published
What the program says it looks for
- At least one orthopedic elective is encouraged for applicants being considered for an interview.
- A well rounded, outgoing, and academically successful candidate.
- Strong interest in the specialty.
- Team play and academic excellence.
- Extracurricular academic endeavours.
- A CV that shows research, publications, electives, and extracurricular work, including interest in future research projects.
Where research appears
Research appears in the CV review during file review and at interview, where completed or in progress projects are welcome but not required, and the residency curriculum requires research projects and at least one peer reviewed publication.
51 to 200
applicants per year
26 to 50%
interview invite rate
Inference, not the program's wording
Research has no separate published weight and appears inside the broader file review and interview. With a mid range invite rate, research in the file could matter for who is invited, but no research share can be assigned because the program does not publish exact weights.
Gaps: Selection weights and interviews per year are not published, and the program goals wording about research comes from a partly truncated view of the CaRMS page that could not be fully verified.
This cohort includes 3 Canadian medical graduates and 3 international medical graduates, and all international schools are combined into one pill. Schools are shown as a set only and are not matched to the individual research profiles below, since with a cohort this small that pairing would make individuals identifiable.
* One paper is dated after the match, most likely listed on the original application as in preparation or pending publication.
All seven confirmed papers are first authored and in orthopedics, centered on pediatric orthopedics (bone fragility, arthrogryposis, and deformity stabilization) with a second thread on 3D printing in surgical planning, oncology, and education. Four are systematic reviews or meta-analyses, and the rest are a retrospective cohort study, a review, and a surgical technique guide. Three appeared in the Journal of Children's Orthopaedics.
Notable: wrote three plain language science articles for young readers in an open access journal, held a student leadership role in an orthopedic pathway initiative, and placed in a student research poster competition.
No byline publications were found in public sources, so there is no bar or stat grid for this profile. Collaborator credits on large multicentre studies are not counted as publications. Zero publications does not mean none exist, it only means none were found in public sources.
Notable: took part as a site collaborator in large multicentre observational studies, and is listed on a conference abstract in geriatric medicine.
* Two papers are dated after the match, most likely listed on the original application as in preparation or pending publication.
The largest body of work in the cohort, with 13 of 18 papers in orthopedics across spine, arthroplasty, and sports medicine, and 14 of 18 first or second authored. Many are social media, sentiment, and natural language analyses, alongside systematic reviews, case reports, and a multicentre cohort study in Spine, with no new protocols. The five other medical papers are on neurosurgery topics such as brain computer interfaces, deep brain stimulation, and glioblastoma.
Notable: presented three abstracts at national spine meetings, two of which later became full papers.
Six of 11 papers are in orthopedics, all in spine surgery or hip replacement, and the four first or second authored items are database studies on complications after spine surgery. The five other medical papers are two COVID-19 antibody studies, a middle authored deep learning model for shoulder radiographs, and two emergency medicine and public health papers completed before medical school. One counted item is a response to a letter to the editor, which carries no original data.
Notable: presented abstracts at national spine meetings, one first authored and not yet a full paper, and one second authored that later became a full paper.
* Two papers are dated after the match, most likely listed on the original application as in preparation or pending publication.
All three papers are first authored and in orthopedics: two studies of markerless gait analysis after hip and knee replacement, published in Sensors and the Journal of Orthopaedic Research, and a survey of surgeon decision making in adult spinal deformity in The Spine Journal. The gait papers are preliminary validation and pilot studies, which reads as early stage tool testing rather than large confirmatory work.
Notable: presented two first authored abstracts at national spine meetings, one of which later became a full paper.
Both papers are outside orthopedics and count as other medical: a bibliometric analysis of social media attention to sleep journals and a cross sectional survey on e-cigarette use among adults. Neither is first or second authored.
Notable: no presentations or activities were found in public sources.
Reading this data
Research volume in this cohort ranges from no confirmed papers to 18, and two profiles account for 29 of the 41 confirmed publications. Orthopedic output is concentrated in spine, arthroplasty, and pediatric orthopedics, and two of the six residents matched with no orthopedic papers on record.
Among those who did publish, 28 of the 41 papers are first or second authored, so research leadership was common where research existed. A strong record was one path in rather than a requirement. Program weightings may change from year to year.
All data on this page was gathered from publicly available sources and verified to a high but not absolute degree of confidence. This profile is intended to give prospective applicants a general sense of what previously matched residents looked like, not to serve as a definitive or exhaustive record.
