United States

Background
In academic medicine, research plays an important role in faculty promotions, development of medical student skills, and strengthening of residency applications in competitive specialties like urology. H-index (Hi) has also been shown to be associated with academic rank at top urology programs in the United States. Our study is the first in the field of urology to examine the effect of student authorship on the scholarly impact score of principal investigators (PI’s) as measured by Hi. 

Methods
A database of authors from the Journal of Endourology during the years 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2020 was created. Author degree and designation as student author (SA), PI, or other author were recorded. Author gender was determined through Gender-API software, and Hi was accessed through Scopus. PI’s were classified based on whether their articles contained SA’s or not (nSA). Article categories were defined by the Journal of Endourology. Independent t-tests assessed differences in mean Hi between SA and nSA groups. ANOVA assessed differences in mean Hi by publishing year. Linear trends were examined using a goodness of fit model and reported as R^2. Significance was defined by p&lt;0.05.

Results
Out of 819 total articles from the selected years, 26% listed a SA. Of 5,307 total authors, 6.7% were classified as SA’s. A majority of SA’s published in the categories: Laparoscopy and Robotic Surgery, General Research, and Experimental Endourology. Geographically, SA papers were concentrated in the Western, North Central, and Southeastern AUA sections. When analyzing the proportion of SA to nSA papers within each category, we found that nSA papers outnumbered SA papers for every category. Articles containing SA’s increased from 22.3% in 2011 to 31.1% in 2020. There was an increasing trend in female authorship overall (R^2=0.84); however, there was no clear trend in student, PI, or first female authorship. PI’s publishing with a SA had a significantly greater mean Hi (30.91) than PI’s without SA’s (27.45), across all years (p=0.025).

Conclusion
Within the Journal of Endourology, student involvement in research enhanced PIs’ research impact, as manifested by significantly greater Hi, suggesting the mentor-mentee collaboration is mutually beneficial. Although female authorship in the Journal of Endourology is increasing overall, women still are disproportionately underrepresented in urology compared to other surgical subspecialties. Given the aging urologic workforce, programs to encourage faculty mentorship and student involvement in research can both enhance student interest and reduce the gender gap within urology.

AMA Research Challenge 2023

Scholarly Impact of Urology Student Authorship

Background
In academic medicine, research plays an important role in faculty promotions, development of medical student skills, and strengthening of residency applications in competitive specialties like urology. H-index (Hi) has also been shown to be associated with academic rank at top urology programs in the United States. Our study is the first in the field of urology to examine the effect of student authorship on the scholarly impact score of principal investigators (PI’s) as measured by Hi. 

Methods
A database of authors from the Journal of Endourology during the years 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2020 was created. Author degree and designation as student author (SA), PI, or other author were recorded. Author gender was determined through Gender-API software, and Hi was accessed through Scopus. PI’s were classified based on whether their articles contained SA’s or not (nSA). Article categories were defined by the Journal of Endourology. Independent t-tests assessed differences in mean Hi between SA and nSA groups. ANOVA assessed differences in mean Hi by publishing year. Linear trends were examined using a goodness of fit model and reported as R^2. Significance was defined by p<0.05.

Results
Out of 819 total articles from the selected years, 26% listed a SA. Of 5,307 total authors, 6.7% were classified as SA’s. A majority of SA’s published in the categories: Laparoscopy and Robotic Surgery, General Research, and Experimental Endourology. Geographically, SA papers were concentrated in the Western, North Central, and Southeastern AUA sections. When analyzing the proportion of SA to nSA papers within each category, we found that nSA papers outnumbered SA papers for every category. Articles containing SA’s increased from 22.3% in 2011 to 31.1% in 2020. There was an increasing trend in female authorship overall (R^2=0.84); however, there was no clear trend in student, PI, or first female authorship. PI’s publishing with a SA had a significantly greater mean Hi (30.91) than PI’s without SA’s (27.45), across all years (p=0.025).

Conclusion
Within the Journal of Endourology, student involvement in research enhanced PIs’ research impact, as manifested by significantly greater Hi, suggesting the mentor-mentee collaboration is mutually beneficial. Although female authorship in the Journal of Endourology is increasing overall, women still are disproportionately underrepresented in urology compared to other surgical subspecialties. Given the aging urologic workforce, programs to encourage faculty mentorship and student involvement in research can both enhance student interest and reduce the gender gap within urology.

poster

Welcome to the **largest national, multi-specialty research** event featuring research from nearly 700 medical students, residents, fellows, and international medical graduates.

Use the buttons below or navigation menu to access the event.
 


[![](https://assets.underline.io/uploads/markdown_image/1/image/3e33a8c754cc49610b30950617d813e7.png)](https://underline.io/events/434/sessions?searchGroup=all)
 
[![](https://assets.underline.io/uploads/markdown_image/1/image/551404d429c4e274f9a54cbdd7081918.png)](https://underline.io/events/434/posters?searchGroup=all)
 
[![](https://assets.underline.io/uploads/markdown_image/1/image/677d92f566b880cebd36905fc738fc10.png)](https://underline.io/events/434/lounge)
 
[![](https://assets.underline.io/uploads/markdown_image/1/image/c7392833c7261c3874c5b43fa2f4df19.png)](https://underline.io/events/434/help-desk)
 

#### Event Details

The 2023 American Medical Association Research Challenge includes a poster symposium hall and a semifinals hall with the top scored research. **Log in at any time throughout the event to:**

* **View posters and presentations** on a variety of topics and specialties
* **Score posters in the semifinals** to help decide the top five finalists (AMA member exclusive opportunity)
* **Connect with participants** and provide feedback to help advance their research
* **Attend education sessions** with physician experts on key research topics

At the conclusion of this event, the AMA will announce the top five finalists who will advance to the AMA Research Challenge finals, present their research to an elite panel of judges, and compete to win a $10,000 grand prize sponsored by Laurel Road. 

### Grand Prize Sponsor

AMA would like to thank Laurel Road for sponsoring a $10,000 grand prize for the winner of the AMA Research Challenge. Laurel Road is not involved in the judging or scoring process to select the winner. The winner will be announced on February 4, 2024 during the AMA Research Challenge finals. Payment of the grand prize will be directly from Laurel Road. See the AMA Research Challenge Official Rules for terms and conditions.

![](https://assets.underline.io/uploads/markdown_image/1/image/611e331d4a0eba0920f240cfc04b4d77.png)

**There is no registration fee for this event! **

Register to explore research in a variety of topics. AMA members get exclusive access to score posters in the semifinals.

**Please use this link [here](https://www.ama-assn.org/about/events/ama-research-challenge) to register for free.**

Registration Is Required

Join the AMA Research Challenge poster symposium and semifinals to explore top research posters, score posters in the semifinals (an AMA member exclusive opportunity) and attend education sessions with experienced physicians to learn tips to advance your research and career. 

Phenomenon: To analyze changes in student study strategies within a flexible curriculum after the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 exam grading shifted from a 3-digit numerical score to pass/fail on January 26, 2022. Little data exists regarding if and how medical students should change their approach to preparing for the new Step 1 exam. 
Approach: We distributed a survey that included questions regarding (1) study schedule, (2) resources utilized, (3) performance on practice tests, and (4) trusted sources of advice. Surveys were distributed to third and fourth-year medical students at the University of Michigan Medical School (UMMS) in Ann Arbor through our institution’s internal email listserv. To offer context, UMMS has a 1-year preclinical period with student flexibility/choice in timing of Step 1 post clinical year. A total of 101 respondents graduating in the class of 2024 or beyond were included in the analysis performed in Excel and RStudio. 
Findings: Students studied anywhere between 2 weeks or less and 10 weeks or more, with the largest proportion (18.81%) of students choosing 8 weeks of study time. Most students took their exam as initially scheduled, however, 40.59% of students increased the length of their study period beyond their initial scheduled date. To determine the amount of time to allocate for dedicated study, 37.26% of respondents talked to students who had already taken Step 1. Students also considered personal prior experiences with standardized tests (15.57%), life events/personal reasons (14.62%), and conversations with medical school advisors (13.21%). During dedicated study time, 44.55% of students studied for 9-11 hours a day, and 42.57% studied for 5-8 hours a day. On average, students completed a total of 2982 (SD 1253) practice questions. 52.69% of students scored between 70-80% on their most recent NBMEs before sitting for their actual Step 1 exam. Everyone who completed the survey passed the exam. Exam non-extenders achieved the same end goal as exam extenders of a pass on Step 1 and a significantly higher end average practice test score with a shorter study period. No differences in Step 1 study time or intensity were found when comparing students stratified by competitiveness of intended specialty.
Insights: Overall, our results demonstrated aspects of both adherence and deviations to widely accepted studying norms for the scored Step 1 exam after the exam was changed to a pass/fail grading system.

Many Paths to the Summit: Survey of Step 1 Study Methods with Pass/Fail Scoring

Background: Despite the increase in use of telemedicine, the evidence base on virtual supervision (VS) in graduate medical education (GME) is not well described.
Objective: To systematically review the use of VS in GME, investigating its characteristics, effectiveness, benefits, and limitations.
Methods: Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, three databases were searched in December 2022. The inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed, full-text, English-language articles reporting the use of VS in GME in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited specialties. Studies that included direct supervision, supervisors who were not credentialed physicians, and non-GME trainees were excluded. Two investigators independently extracted data and appraised the methodological quality of each study using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).
Results: Twenty-six studies were included in our qualitative synthesis. Virtual supervision facilitated efficient and rapid communication between supervisors and trainees, leading to improved patient care quality in some studies. Additionally, several studies reported a high level of agreement in diagnosis and treatment plans between supervisors and trainees. Based on self-reported surveys, supervisor and trainee satisfaction with VS was mixed, while patient satisfaction was generally high. The MMAT ratings suggested limitations in sampling strategy, outcome measurement, and inclusion of confounding factors.
Conclusions: Virtual supervision is applicable to various specialties and training levels, offering advantages such as increased training opportunities, trainee autonomy and communication. Future studies should employ large sample sizes, objective outcome measures, and rigorous methodology to expand the evidence base.


Use of Virtual Supervision in Graduate Medical Education: A Systematic Review

Background: ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence large language model that can comprehend and generate human-like text. Previous studies have evaluated the success of its earlier models on USMLE Step 1 questions, but have not examined differences in performance by subjects or disciplines. The current study utilizes the newer model of GPT-4 to assess performance by subject and disciplines and explore its implications for medical education.
Methods: Questions were obtained from the AMBOSS Step 1 question bank and inputted into ChatGPT to analyze accuracy. Questions from 18 systems and 12 disciplines were randomly selected and differences of accuracy between the various domains were assessed. ChatGPT accuracy was also compared to the accuracy of students towards the individual questions.
Results: A total of 1,300 questions were analyzed. ChatGPT-4 achieved an overall accuracy of 86% across all questions. There were no significant differences between the various systems or disciplines. ChatGPT accuracy increased as the student accuracy increased for each question (p<.001).
Conclusion: ChatGPT-4 demonstrated high accuracy towards USMLE Step 1 questions, validating the proficiency of the software. The 86% accuracy observed is notably higher than percentages noted on previous studies assessing Step 1 questions that used earlier models of ChatGPT and exceeds the 60% passing threshold with a large margin. The lack of a difference in accuracy by systems and disciplines further demonstrates its reliability in being adopted as a supplemental learning platform for medical students. In addition to ChatGPT’s multi-step processing and ability to provide detailed and logical explanations to questions, we demonstrate an example of how it may be further utilized to enhance understanding of medical topics through applying prompts. In leveraging this technology, we stand on the brink of significant breakthroughs in our ability to enhance learning outcomes, especially in fields as critical and demanding as medicine.

ChatGPT-4 performance on USMLE Step 1 questions and its implications for medical education: A comparative study across systems and disciplines

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the gap in the effective communication of health information between the medical community and general public. For example, vaccine hesitancy demonstrated the need to engage patients in challenging conversations, explain complex scientific research and advancements, and appropriately acknowledge areas of medical uncertainty. To meet this need, medical educators play an important role in the training of rising physicians. Specifically, we can employ innovative training models such as medical improv which utilizes improvisational theatre principles to enhance trainees’ communication skills. To this end, we examined the use of medical improv as a tool for teaching clinical communication skills to UC Davis medical students ahead of their first clinical clerkships.
Methods: We piloted a four-part medical improv workshop for second-year medical students in January of 2022 to teach core improv communication skills such as active listening, quick thinking, and collaboration. After initially assessing the workshop impact through pre-and-post workshop surveys, we conducted one year of follow up by distributing digital surveys after 4 of the 7 clinical clerkships. Surveys were comprised of Likert scale and open-response questions to assess how, if at all, medical students employed improv communication skills during clerkships. Data was analyzed using mixed methods. Of note, enrollment was limited due to the spread of the Omicron variant in Winter of 2022.
Results: Of the 10 enrolled students, 8 (80%) completed the workshop, and 3-7 respondents submitted each follow-up survey. Participants implemented improv skills an average of 3 times during a day of clinic activity. Thematic analysis of the narrative responses revealed that students most commonly implemented their improv skills when 1) actively listening to patients, 2) answering questions posed by patient’s families, and 3) having difficult conversations. Students described how active listening was critical to establishing connections with patients and understanding their perspectives. One student remarked, “actively listening to the patient was much more important than trying to pre-form a response to what I imagine they are going to say.”
Conclusion: After one-year of follow up, this pilot study shows that medical improv can meaningfully impact students’ clinical communication skills by teaching the difference between responding and reacting in conversations with patients and their families. Through honing active listening skills, we can better equip future physicians to minimize the communication gap between them and their patients.

Responding vs. Reacting: How medical improv can enhance clinical communication skills in rising physicians

Background
Adoption has life-long health implications for nearly 8 million adopted people and their families in the United States. Most U.S. adoptees have limited family medical history (LFMH) and adoptees are also 3.7 times more likely to attempt suicide than their non-adopted siblings. Genetic testing kits promising health information to consumers have become increasingly available in recent years, amplifying the need to address genetic testing for adult adopted patients with LFMH. Numerous patient narratives by adult adoptees with LFMH illustrate encounters with clinicians that trigger medical anxiety, shame, guilt, and distrust. However, adult adoptees with LFMH are nearly absent from medical literature and training and little work has been done examining the perspectives, approach, and training of PCPs caring for this population.

Methods
This exploratory, qualitative study is the first to explore primary care physicians’ (PCPs) training and approaches to adult adoptees with LFMH. PCPs in Minnesota and Rhode Island specializing in family medicine, medicine, and medicine-pediatrics were recruited via convenience and reputational sampling. Twenty-three semi-structured hour-long interviews were conducted utilizing hypothetical clinical vignettes. Interview transcripts were coded according to the template organizing method, and then interpreted via immersion crystallization.

Results
Findings from this study suggest that PCPs typically receive little education, training, or resources throughout medical school, residency, and continuing medical education about adopted patients with LFMH. PCPs reported limited knowledge and discomfort in managing adoption issues and mental health concerns of adopted patients. Although previous research has observed an increased likelihood of attempted suicide among adopted people, half of PCPs were unaware of local mental health professionals or community organizations that specialize in adoption. Most PCPs expressed uncertainty around best practices for adult adoptees with LFMH and genetic testing, especially recreational direct-to-consumer kits. PCPs varied widely on whether they believed genetic testing beneficial or harmful for adoptees with LFMH. Lastly, many PCPs reported obtaining family medical history in ways that may cause miscommunication and risk being interpreted as devaluing non-biological families. Nearly all PCPs endorsed additional training about adult adoptees with LFMH as beneficial, particularly for mental health issues and genetic testing.

Conclusion
Given that these issues remain largely unaddressed by medical literature, curricula, and professional physician societies, future research should expand education and training opportunities for medical professionals to improve health care for adult adoptees with limited family medical history.

Exploring Primary Care Physicians’ Approach to Adult Adopted Patients with Limited Family Medical History: A Qualitative Study

Background: The financial climate for medical students has grown precarious, with increasing educational debt and unfavorable loan terms affecting students’ career decisions and overall well-being. This situation is exacerbated by a critical lack of financial literacy, which has been shown to vary among graduate students from different backgrounds. Thus, many students enter the professional sphere ill-equipped to manage their finances. High debt levels may also sway residency specialty choices, decrease interest in primary care specialties, and contribute to burnout, adversely impacting professional performance and personal happiness. Conversely, financial literacy significantly improves personal well-being and career satisfaction, so there is an urgent need to incorporate financial training into early medical education. The aim of this study is to identify gaps in students’ financial literacy and their associations with demographic findings.

Hypothesis: We hypothesize that demographic factors will display a strong correlation with self-assessed financial literacy but not with objective literacy. We also believe that students will both select a specialty and a location based on their financial circumstances. 

Methods: An anonymous web-based questionnaire was designed using Qualtrics and sent to medical students of all four years at one medical school. It explored various topics to evaluate demographic data and students' financial behaviors, knowledge, and perceptions. Objective financial literacy was measured using the “Big 3”, a validated financial literacy questionnaire.

Results: A total of 218 students responded to the questionnaire. No significant differences in financial literacy and habits were found across different years of medical school (p>0.05). Notably, immigrants both scored lower in financial literacy (p<0.01) and considered themselves to be less financially literate than their non-immigrant counterparts (p<0.01). However, students from underrepresented backgrounds had no significant difference in financial literacy, but considered themselves to be less financially literate, than their counterparts (p<0.01). Additionally, higher parental education mildly correlated with improved financial literacy (p<0.05). Students' finances significantly impacted their desired future practice location (p<0.01) but not specialty choice (p>0.05). Lastly, there were no significant associations among student debt, debt-drive behaviors, and demographic data (p>0.05).

Conclusion: The study demonstrates distinct disparities in financial literacy and student debt perspectives among medical students, particularly influenced by factors such as immigration and underrepresented status. There were also interesting correlations between parental education levels and financial literacy. However, many expected associations, like that between immigrant status, or underrepresented status and student debt, were insignificant, challenging some preconceptions. Notably, student finances significantly impacted the location choice for practice, independent of immigration or underrepresentation status, further emphasizing the multi-faceted nature of these economic and demographic factors in medical students' lives.

Financial Literacy Among Medical Students:
Debt, Demographics, and Career

**Scoring is only possible in the semifinals hall**

**Abstract:**



Medical School’s Hidden Curriculum: The Financial Literacy Gap Among Future Physicians

Medical students have reported higher rates of stress and depression compared to their age-matched peers, which worsen while studying in isolation for high stakes examinations such as the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1. Medical schools should therefore implement and evaluate additional support offerings to improve the student experience during this time. We implemented a support framework, titled Step-Up, to directly address isolation for students studying for Step 1 in the winter of 2021-2022. This included multiple group, individual, and email interventions. Students were asked to self-report wellness and connectivity before and during Step 1 studying, levels of satisfaction and usefulness of the resources offered. As expected, self-reports of wellness and connectivity worsened during Step 1 study. Many interventions had low uptake. Students reported highest satisfaction with and usefulness of weekly emails and near-peer tutors. Our data show that near-peer tutoring and regular support emails are successful interventions to help mitigate the worsening wellness and increased isolation medical students experience during Step 1 studying. It also examines multiple other interventions that educators may wish to study further, or not include due to lack of uptake or benefit.

Step-Up to Address Step 1 Anxiety and Improve Wellness

Background
Research is a cornerstone of medical education, and demonstration of aptitude in this area is necessary to fulfill the general competencies identified by the ACGME. As such, research opportunities for medical students should be available, accessible, and fulfilling. However, a variety of reasons exist that hinder the ability of medical students to achieve their desired and essential experiences in clinical and/or laboratory research. These impediments can lead to student dissatisfaction and less competitive residency applications. 

Methods
We conducted a cross-sectional survey of University of Massachusetts (UMass) Chan Medical School students to better understand the current state of student research. Current and past research participation was collected, including the number of projects and weekly commitment. A Likert scale was used to query students’ perceptions regarding importance of participating in research, ease of accessing and applying to research opportunities, and barriers to research opportunities. Student satisfaction with access to research opportunities was ranked from 1-10 (least-most satisfied). This survey was approved by the UMass Chan Medical School IRB (STUDY00000459). 

Results
Overall, 108 students (16.7% of all UMass medical students) completed the survey, of which 63 (58.3%) were pre-clinical students. Most students (88.9%) responded that scholarly activity was ‘slightly important’ or ‘very important’, but only 61.1% of students reported involvement in a scholarly project. 51% of students responded that research opportunities are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very difficult’ to access. Mean satisfaction with access to research was 4.4 +/- 2.6. The three most common selected barriers to research activity were difficulty finding research project listings (64.8%), not having enough time available (45.4%), and trouble contacting investigators (42.6%). 

Conclusion
Students recognize the importance of scholarly activity during medical education in molding their professional and academic identity, and in improving their residency competitiveness. However, gaining access to opportunities can be difficult. Despite UMass Chan Medical School being amongst the top 25% of institutions in terms of research output per student, we identified a significant opportunity to improve student satisfaction in medical education through research. While it would be difficult to address some barriers, such as available time for medical students, improving accessibility of opportunities and communication represent targets for countermeasures. We recently secured funding to establish resident liaisons within clinical departments and a Drupal server to create a research listing database called 'UMatch'.

Downloads

Next from AMA Research Challenge 2023

Many Paths to the Summit: Survey of Step 1 Study Methods with Pass/Fail Scoring