Scholarlink

<p>Dermatology remains one of the most competitive specialties, yet it lacks a formal national ranking system. Applicants often rely on subjective tools like the Doximity Residency Navigator, which has faced criticism for methodological opacity. Prior efforts to objectively rank dermatology programs have not been updated since the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) introduced signaling. Methods: Dermatology residency programs participating in the 2024 ERAS cycle were assessed using four metrics: (1) number of full-time faculty, (2) number of faculty-authored publications in 2024 (via PubMed), (3) Dermatology NIH funding (via NIH RePORTER), and (4) number of faculty lectures at four major dermatology conferences. Each metric was normalized (0–1.0 scale), and weighted scores were calculated (NIH funding, publications, and lectures weighted at 1.0; faculty size at 0.5). Programs were ranked by composite score. Results were compared with Doximity’s prestige rankings using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (ρ) and root-mean-square error (RMSE). Results: The top 5 ranked programs in 2024 were: University of California San Francisco Program, Mass General Brigham (Harvard University), McGaw Medical Center of Northwestern University, University of Pennsylvania Health System Program, and NYU Grossman School of Medicine Program. Our academic ranking correlated strongly with Doximity’s prestige rankings (Spearman ρ = 0.76, <i>P</i> &lt; .05). However, substantial individual discrepancies were evident with programs differing by an average of 20.7 positions between the two lists (RMSE ≈ 27). Some smaller programs performed highly, suggesting that per-capita productivity and faculty visibility are not adequately captured by traditional peer-nominated systems. Conclusion: This study provides an updated, transparent, and reproducible ranking of U.S. dermatology residency programs based on academic metrics. Our findings highlight a potential disconnect between current academic output and program reputation, providing a valuable, data-driven tool for applicants and a benchmark for program self-assessment. <i>Level of Evidence</i>: V.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

An objective, metrics-based ranking of U.S. dermatology residency programs in 2024: a comparative analysis of academic productivity and reputational standing

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月4日

查看全文
  • Kenny Ta,
  • Aaron Wang,
  • Dahyeon Kim,
  • Ferdos Abdulkader,
  • Nickoulet Babaei,
  • Robert P. Dellavalle,
  • Jashin Wu

摘要

Dermatology remains one of the most competitive specialties, yet it lacks a formal national ranking system. Applicants often rely on subjective tools like the Doximity Residency Navigator, which has faced criticism for methodological opacity. Prior efforts to objectively rank dermatology programs have not been updated since the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) introduced signaling. Methods: Dermatology residency programs participating in the 2024 ERAS cycle were assessed using four metrics: (1) number of full-time faculty, (2) number of faculty-authored publications in 2024 (via PubMed), (3) Dermatology NIH funding (via NIH RePORTER), and (4) number of faculty lectures at four major dermatology conferences. Each metric was normalized (0–1.0 scale), and weighted scores were calculated (NIH funding, publications, and lectures weighted at 1.0; faculty size at 0.5). Programs were ranked by composite score. Results were compared with Doximity’s prestige rankings using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (ρ) and root-mean-square error (RMSE). Results: The top 5 ranked programs in 2024 were: University of California San Francisco Program, Mass General Brigham (Harvard University), McGaw Medical Center of Northwestern University, University of Pennsylvania Health System Program, and NYU Grossman School of Medicine Program. Our academic ranking correlated strongly with Doximity’s prestige rankings (Spearman ρ = 0.76, P < .05). However, substantial individual discrepancies were evident with programs differing by an average of 20.7 positions between the two lists (RMSE ≈ 27). Some smaller programs performed highly, suggesting that per-capita productivity and faculty visibility are not adequately captured by traditional peer-nominated systems. Conclusion: This study provides an updated, transparent, and reproducible ranking of U.S. dermatology residency programs based on academic metrics. Our findings highlight a potential disconnect between current academic output and program reputation, providing a valuable, data-driven tool for applicants and a benchmark for program self-assessment. Level of Evidence: V.