Landmark Study Reveals What Really Drives Fellowship Success for Internal Medicine Residents

Every year, more than half of internal medicine residents in the United States set their sights on subspecialty fellowships, with nearly 8,000 applicants entering the pipeline in 2023 alone. The application process consumes enormous time and effort on both sides: residents labor over publications and letters, while fellowship programs wade through ever-growing stacks of applications. Yet despite the stakes, the relative importance of different applicant characteristics in determining who actually succeeds has remained murky. Now, a nationwide analysis published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine has delivered the most comprehensive picture to date, drawing on individual-level data for 38,179 applicants to the eight largest internal medicine subspecialties between 2008 and 2020.

The findings, led by Neil S. Zhang and Atif Qasim of the University of California, San Francisco, along with collaborators at Creighton University and the Kirk Kerkorian School of Medicine at UNLV, are striking in their clarity. Overall, 32,091 of the 38,179 applicants, or 84.1 percent, successfully entered the subspecialty to which they applied. But that aggregate success rate conceals dramatic differences among applicant groups. Research productivity emerged as the single most powerful predictor: applicants with 11 or more publications had 4.18 times higher odds of success compared with those who had none, a stronger association than any other characteristic examined.

The study leveraged a unique combination of databases. Applicant characteristics came from the Electronic Residency Application Service, or ERAS, administered by the Association of American Medical Colleges, and were linked to the AAMC’s Graduate Medical Education Track, a national registry of trainees at every residency and fellowship program. An applicant was defined as successful if he or she appeared in GME Track as a fellow in the same subspecialty during the corresponding appointment year. The researchers excluded applicants who applied to more than one subspecialty, applied in multiple years, or had masked ages, yielding a cohort of single-time applicants to cardiovascular disease, endocrinology, gastroenterology, hematology and oncology, infectious disease, pulmonary and critical care medicine, nephrology, and rheumatology.

Statistically, the team used multivariable logistic regression to isolate the effect of each characteristic while adjusting for all others, along with the subspecialty and application year. Predictive margins were estimated to calculate adjusted probabilities of success for different applicant groups across publication categories. The cohort had a median age of 31 years, and 41.2 percent were female, 9.5 percent identified as underrepresented in medicine, and 39.6 percent were international medical graduates. Chief resident status, additional graduate degrees such as a PhD or master’s degree, and training in larger residency programs with 55 or more residents all independently boosted the odds of success.

Against these advantages, several groups faced measurable headwinds. Each additional year of age was associated with lower odds of success. After adjustment, female applicants had 0.89 times the odds of success, underrepresented-in-medicine applicants 0.84 times, osteopathic DO graduates 0.53 times, and international medical graduates just 0.44 times the odds of their counterparts. Graduates of community-based residency programs and community-based, university-affiliated programs were likewise significantly less likely to succeed than those from university-based programs, a pattern the authors attribute in part to the weight program directors place on the perceived reputation of the training institution.

The subspecialty-level breakdown sharpened the picture. The disadvantage for female applicants was most pronounced in cardiovascular disease and gastroenterology, where women had 0.79 times the odds of success, while the penalty for underrepresented-in-medicine applicants was especially evident in pulmonary and critical care medicine, at 0.59 times the odds. The payoff for research output also varied: the association between 11 or more publications and success was particularly strong in gastroenterology, pulmonary and critical care medicine, and endocrinology, though notably absent in infectious disease. Analyses restricted to the four most competitive subspecialties suggested that many of these disadvantages grew even larger in the toughest markets.

One of the most consequential findings concerns whether publications can compensate for baseline disadvantage. Predictive margins showed that success rose with publication count for every applicant group. For underrepresented-in-medicine applicants, the gap with non-underrepresented peers appeared to narrow at higher publication counts, although interaction testing did not reach statistical significance, likely because few such applicants reached the highest publication category. More sobering was the finding that the disadvantages experienced by female and DO applicants persisted at every level of research productivity, showing no attenuation whatsoever. International medical graduates gained more from each additional publication than their MD counterparts, yet even this larger benefit failed to erase their baseline gap entirely.

The authors frame these results as evidence of a self-reinforcing research arms race. Program director surveys consistently rank research involvement and perceived interest in scholarship among the most important selection factors, prompting applicants to accumulate ever more publications, which in turn pushes programs to value the metric even more. Prior work suggests many of these entries are never cited, raising concerns about the quality of the science behind the numbers. The ERAS publications variable aggregates journal articles, abstracts, book chapters, and presentations into a single count, so a first-author paper in a major journal currently carries the same statistical weight as a poster at a regional meeting, a limitation the researchers say should be addressed in future studies.

As a remedy, the study advocates for Mission-aligned Selection, a framework promoted by the AAMC that emphasizes individualized, systematic review of applicants’ experiences, attributes, and academic metrics in light of each program’s mission. Early adopters offer encouraging signals: after one pulmonary and critical care fellowship implemented holistic review practices, its faculty ranked publications among the least important metrics, and a pediatric surgery fellowship reported that the caliber of its interviewees actually improved. The authors also point to preference signaling, now available in several internal medicine subspecialties, as a tool that may reduce defensive over-application, though its effects on equity remain unproven. They caution that qualitative materials central to holistic review, such as letters of recommendation, have been shown to contain biased language toward female and underrepresented applicants, so standardization efforts must accompany any shift away from raw publication counts.

The study’s limitations are worth noting. Because direct match data were not available, success was defined as entering the subspecialty rather than formally matching, though out-of-match placements likely represent a small minority. Factors such as board scores, honors, interview ratings, and personal statements were unavailable, leaving room for residual confounding. Still, as the first comprehensive, individual-level national analysis of its kind, the work makes the structure of the fellowship selection process unusually visible. Its message is twofold: research output overwhelmingly determines who gets in, and the system as currently constituted systematically favors younger, male, non-underrepresented, US MD graduates at large university programs. Whether programs and their governing bodies embrace mission-aligned processes may determine not only individual careers but also the future diversity and representativeness of the internal medicine subspecialty workforce.

Subject of Research: Factors associated with successful entry into internal medicine subspecialty fellowships

Article Title: Characteristics and Success of Internal Medicine Applicants to Subspecialty Fellowships

Article References: Zhang, N. S., Tun, K. M., Batra, K., Babik, J. M., Huppert, L., Singh, A., Wahi-Gururaj, S., & Qasim, A. (2026). Characteristics and Success of Internal Medicine Applicants to Subspecialty Fellowships. Journal of General Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-026-10688-w

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s11606-026-10688-w

Keywords: internal medicine, fellowship match, graduate medical education, publications, underrepresented in medicine, international medical graduates, osteopathic medicine, mission-aligned selection, ERAS, cardiology, pulmonary critical care, workforce diversity