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
- Organized, responsible, reliable and professional candidates with excellent verbal and written communication and teamwork ability
- Research or teaching interest and experience, lifelong learning and interprofessional skills
- Good visual competency, some procedural facility, and compassionate high quality patient care
- Contribution to the program, university and profession, with trainee diversity reflecting Canada's population
- Applications scored by at least 8 reviewers, emphasizing academic record, personal letter, references, CanMEDS proficiency, electives, interpersonal skills, publications and presentations, extracurricular involvement and research experience
- At least one dermatology elective is required with no on-site requirement, and examinations are evaluated on the IMG stream but not on the CMG stream
Where research appears
File review judges the ability to be involved with and complete research, publications, presentations and research experience count toward selection for interview, and the interview judges evidence of previous scholarship.
51 to 200
applicants per year
26 to 50%
interview invite rate
Inference, not the program's wording
Research has no separate weight. It appears at file review, in selection for interview, and at interview, so it can help at several stages, but the program publishes no weights and no research share can be assigned.
Gaps: Figures are the same for the CMG stream (quota 5) and the IMG stream (quota 1), and the program does not state an interview count.
Five residents in this cohort are Canadian medical graduates and one is an International Medical Graduate. Schools are shown as a set only and are not matched to the individual profiles below.
0
adjacent specialty research
Sixteen of 19 papers are first or second authored, and all 19 are dermatology relevant, spread across a wide range of dermatology topics. The record is almost entirely systematic reviews, with two pieces of original clinical data: a first-authored retrospective study and a second-authored case series. There is no adjacent specialty or other medical work. Two papers, the most recent published online after the match, were most likely listed on the original application as in preparation or pending publication, which is worth keeping in mind when benchmarking against this profile.
Notable: Founded and co-directs a student-led community outreach project and co-chaired a youth education initiative. Volunteer research assistant on a dermatology research team during medical school. Earlier undergraduate degree with research and teaching assistant roles.
Two counted items could not be found on PubMed and were confirmed from other records.
1
adjacent specialty research
Eight of 11 papers are first or second authored, and the record leans paediatric and equity minded. It mixes systematic reviews with original work, including a first-authored pilot study and a second-authored retrospective review, plus a consensus recommendations paper. The one adjacent specialty paper is a review in rheumatology. One paper, published online after the match, was most likely listed on the original application as in preparation or pending publication.
Notable: No presentations, leadership roles, teaching or awards were found in public sources, so this profile reflects research output only.
Excluded: one preprint that is not yet peer reviewed, and one paper that belongs to a different researcher.
2
adjacent specialty research
The second largest body of work in the cohort, with 20 of 25 papers first or second authored. A large share is education and equity research about the specialty itself. These count as directly relevant because they are published program and education research. The rest is mostly systematic reviews of rare conditions. Two adjacent specialty papers are in rheumatology. Four other medical papers come from unrelated fields. One large collaborative review with a long author list is counted as a middle contribution. Five papers, published online after the match, were most likely listed on the original application as in preparation or pending publication.
Notable: Project lead for a patient-facing education initiative, building educational resources and writing about care disparities. Nominated for a community leadership award.
5
adjacent specialty research
By far the highest volume in the cohort, with 58 of 73 papers first or second authored. Nearly all are systematic reviews or evidence-based reviews, many of them short research letters produced within a large collaborative review group, so the count reflects throughput more than a spread of study designs. The few original-data papers include a first-authored cross-sectional study and a proof-of-concept study. Five adjacent specialty papers sit in rheumatology, and one paper falls in other medical. Nineteen of the 73 papers have online dates after the match, so many were most likely listed on the original application as in preparation or pending publication, while those dated months later may reflect work completed after applying.
Notable: Presented posters on several of the reviews that were later published. Completed a prior graduate degree. Held a journal editorial role, developed an education microcredential, and did tutoring work.
A co-published duplicate of one article is counted once. Three papers with uncertain attribution are excluded.
1
adjacent specialty research
Thirty-four confirmed papers, 22 of them first or second authored, built from systematic reviews and meta-analyses alongside a notable run of original cross-sectional studies on online patient resources, a retrospective treatment study and a clinical case series. Topics cluster around a few common inflammatory conditions. The one adjacent specialty paper is a systematic review and meta-analysis in rheumatology. Nine papers, published online after the match, were most likely listed on the original application as in preparation or pending publication. The author also co-wrote a published reply letter, which is noted here but not counted.
Notable: Presented at several international dermatology meetings, including a plenary talk at a medical student symposium. Involved with patient advocacy work.
Excluded: a reply letter, a proceedings write-up, a same-name researcher's record in another field, and one paper with uncertain attribution.
0
adjacent specialty research
The smallest research record in the cohort, with two confirmed papers, both first or second authored: a second-authored systematic review and a first-authored case report. The case report sits lower on the evidence ladder than a review, and it was published online after the match, so it was most likely listed on the original application as in preparation or pending publication.
Notable: Held student society leadership roles and an ambassador role in a dermatology education organization during medical school. Completed an undergraduate research internship, and worked as a physician abroad before starting residency.
Excluded: unrelated papers wrongly attached to this name by an automated research profile.
Written descriptions on this page are intentionally general to protect resident privacy. Counts and authorship figures are unchanged.
Reading this data
Research volume in this cohort is extremely uneven. The six residents range from 2 to 73 confirmed papers, and two of them account for 107 of the 164 total, so the average of 27.3 overstates what a typical profile looks like. The median is 22. Most counts are systematic reviews and short research letters from high-throughput collaborative groups, with far fewer original-data studies, and one resident matched with just two papers.
Almost everything is directly dermatology relevant, 150 of 164 papers. Rheumatology crossover is small, nine papers across four residents. Equity and education work runs through several profiles. Thirty-seven papers across the cohort show online dates after the match, so counts at the time of application were lower, especially for the highest-volume profile. 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.
