What the research profiles of this year's 7 incoming residents actually look like, by specialty relevance, prior research background, and notable activity, not just publication count.
Source: CaRMS program descriptions
Selection weights
Selection weights not published
What the program says it looks for
- Enthusiastic, hard working, motivated applicants who work well in teams
- Aptitude for diagnostic imaging, including strong visual learning, detection and memory
- Strong written, verbal and interpersonal communication, with empathy and respect
- Self motivated, continuous independent learning and problem solving
- Patient centred care, integrity and professionalism
- Selection on individual merit, with Casper completion required for eligibility
Where research appears
File review has a research and publications criterion covering experience, publications and presentations, and scholarly activities are also evaluated at interview.
51 to 200
applicants per year
26 to 50%
interview invite rate
Inference, not the program's wording
The program does not publish exact weights, and research has no separate weight. It appears in both file review and interview, so it can matter at both stages, but no research share can be assigned.
Gaps: The program data covers only the Edmonton CMG stream with a quota of 5, while 7 spots were filled this cycle, its applicant range conflicts with a separate page line giving an average of 100 to 110, no interview count or rank list size is stated, and the page was last approved September 10, 2025.
All 7 residents in this cohort are Canadian medical graduates. 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.
Interventional radiology counts as radiology relevant. Non-medical research from a prior degree is described in the notes rather than charted.
*Includes 1 paper dated after match day, most likely listed on the original application as in preparation or pending publication.
Entirely radiology relevant, and entirely abdominal imaging: three reviews of liver tumour imaging plus a first-authored scoping review on an emergency ultrasound question. Every paper is a review or scoping review, so the record shows depth in one subfield rather than newly built tools or protocols.
Notable: no presentations or other notable activity were found in public sources. That reflects what is publicly visible, not necessarily what exists.
A small record, but both research papers are first authored: a health-economics analysis of thyroid ultrasound guidelines, which counts as radiology relevant, and a randomized trial in an unrelated surgical specialty. Two other non-research items, an article and a review, are not counted.
Notable: no presentations or other notable activity were found in public sources. That reflects what is publicly visible, not necessarily what exists.
*Includes 1 paper dated after match day, most likely listed on the original application as in preparation or pending publication.
Two middle-authored papers from an applied AI imaging team, each testing whether an automated classifier can read lung ultrasound as well as expert readers or chest radiography. Neither is first or second authored, so this reads as participation in a larger team project rather than lead authorship.
Notable: one co-authored paper was also summarized in a public-facing blog post. No presentations or other notable activity were found in public sources.
Additional items reported in the original research could not be independently confirmed and are excluded from the counts above.
Not charted: all 4 confirmed publications are non-medical, qualitative nursing and health research completed during a prior degree and an earlier health-care career.
One of the four is first authored. None connect to radiology, so this record is best read as general research experience rather than specialty focus.
Notable: worked in health care before medical school. No presentations or other notable activity were found in public sources, which reflects what is publicly visible rather than everything that exists.
A preprint that may duplicate one of the counted papers is excluded.
The radiology relevant paper is a second-authored neuroimaging methods paper, the higher-initiative type because it tests a new way of handling images. The other is a late-position contribution to a large multi-author immunology cohort study.
Notable: first authored a conference abstract on fatigue in autoimmune disease, the pilot work behind the immunology paper, which is not counted.
*Includes 3 papers dated after match day, most likely listed on the original application as in preparation or pending publication.
Four confirmed publications across two areas. A first-authored dual-energy CT review and two second-authored interventional radiology case reports are radiology relevant, and a middle-authored ophthalmic surgery study is other medical. Three of the four are dated after match day.
Notable: also has non-medical research and writing from an earlier career phase, which is not counted.
Additional items reported in the original research could not be independently confirmed and are excluded from the counts above.
Not charted: all 7 confirmed publications are non-medical laboratory basic science in cell and mitochondrial biology, from earlier graduate-level research.
*Includes 1 paper dated after match day, most likely listed on the original application as in preparation or pending publication.
Two of the seven are first authored, and the rest are middle-authored contributions to larger lab projects. Nothing connects directly to radiology, so this record reflects research training rather than specialty focus.
Notable: completed a research-based graduate degree before medical school, which accounts for the full body of work. No radiology-specific activity was found in public sources, which reflects what is publicly visible rather than everything that exists.
Reading this data
Volume is modest and uneven in this cohort. Confirmed publications range from 2 to 7 per resident with a median of 4, and 5 of 7 residents have at least one radiology relevant paper. The deepest radiology record (4 papers) and the largest total (7 papers) belong to different residents, because the 7-paper record is entirely prior basic science and is not charted.
Six of 7 residents have at least one first or second authored paper, and two have exactly one radiology relevant paper alongside work from another field, so a small, focused imaging record was a common shape here. Two of the 7 matched into the combined diagnostic radiology and nuclear medicine stream. 6 of the 25 confirmed papers are dated after match day and were most likely listed as in preparation at application time, which is worth keeping in mind when benchmarking against these profiles. 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.
