The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Residency Application Evaluation-A Scoping Review.

Journal of graduate medical education Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-06-16 DOI:10.4300/JGME-D-24-00604.1
Maxwell D Sumner, T Clark Howell, Alexandria L Soto, Samantha Kaplan, Elisabeth T Tracy, Aimee K Zaas, John Migaly, Allan D Kirk, Kevin Shah
{"title":"The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Residency Application Evaluation-A Scoping Review.","authors":"Maxwell D Sumner, T Clark Howell, Alexandria L Soto, Samantha Kaplan, Elisabeth T Tracy, Aimee K Zaas, John Migaly, Allan D Kirk, Kevin Shah","doi":"10.4300/JGME-D-24-00604.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b> Several residency programs have begun investigating artificial intelligence (AI) methods to facilitate application screening processes. However, no unifying guidelines for these methods exist. <b>Objective</b> We sought to perform a scoping review of AI model development and use in residency/fellowship application review, including if bias was explored. <b>Methods</b> A scoping review was performed according to PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines where a systematic search strategy identified relevant literature within the databases MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus from inception to September 29, 2023. No limitations on language, article type, or geographic affiliation were placed on the search parameters. Data were extracted from relevant documents, and study findings were synthesized by the authors. <b>Results</b> Twelve studies met inclusion criteria. Most used AI to predict interviews or rank lists (9 of 12, 75%), while the remaining 3 articles (25%) evaluated letters of recommendation with natural language processing. Six articles (50%) compared the model's output to a human-created rank list. Most of the reviewed articles (9 of 12, 75%) mention bias; however, few explicitly modeled biases by accounting for or examining the effect of demographic factors (3 of 12, 25%). <b>Conclusions</b> Few studies have been published on incorporating AI into residency/fellowship selection, and bias remains largely unexplored. There is a need for standardization in bias and fairness reporting within this area of research.</p>","PeriodicalId":37886,"journal":{"name":"Journal of graduate medical education","volume":"17 3","pages":"308-319"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12169010/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of graduate medical education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-24-00604.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Several residency programs have begun investigating artificial intelligence (AI) methods to facilitate application screening processes. However, no unifying guidelines for these methods exist. Objective We sought to perform a scoping review of AI model development and use in residency/fellowship application review, including if bias was explored. Methods A scoping review was performed according to PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines where a systematic search strategy identified relevant literature within the databases MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus from inception to September 29, 2023. No limitations on language, article type, or geographic affiliation were placed on the search parameters. Data were extracted from relevant documents, and study findings were synthesized by the authors. Results Twelve studies met inclusion criteria. Most used AI to predict interviews or rank lists (9 of 12, 75%), while the remaining 3 articles (25%) evaluated letters of recommendation with natural language processing. Six articles (50%) compared the model's output to a human-created rank list. Most of the reviewed articles (9 of 12, 75%) mention bias; however, few explicitly modeled biases by accounting for or examining the effect of demographic factors (3 of 12, 25%). Conclusions Few studies have been published on incorporating AI into residency/fellowship selection, and bias remains largely unexplored. There is a need for standardization in bias and fairness reporting within this area of research.

人工智能在住院医师申请评估中的应用——范围综述。
一些住院医师项目已经开始研究人工智能(AI)方法来促进申请筛选过程。然而,这些方法没有统一的指导方针。我们试图对AI模型的开发和在住院医师/奖学金申请审查中的使用进行范围审查,包括是否存在偏见。方法根据PRISMA-ScR(系统评价和荟萃分析扩展范围评价的首选报告项目)指南进行范围评价,系统搜索策略在MEDLINE, Embase和Scopus数据库中确定了从成立到2023年9月29日的相关文献。对搜索参数没有语言、文章类型或地理关系的限制。数据摘自相关文献,研究结果由作者综合整理。结果12项研究符合纳入标准。大多数使用人工智能来预测面试或排名(12篇中的9篇,75%),而其余3篇(25%)使用自然语言处理来评估推荐信。六篇文章(50%)将模型的输出与人工创建的排名列表进行了比较。大多数被审查的文章(12篇中的9篇,75%)提到了偏见;然而,很少有人通过考虑或检查人口因素的影响来明确建模偏见(12.25%中的3个)。关于将人工智能纳入住院医师/奖学金选择的研究很少发表,偏见在很大程度上仍未被发现。在这一研究领域中,有必要对偏见和公平报告进行标准化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of graduate medical education
Journal of graduate medical education Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
248
期刊介绍: - Be the leading peer-reviewed journal in graduate medical education; - Promote scholarship and enhance the quality of research in the field; - Disseminate evidence-based approaches for teaching, assessment, and improving the learning environment; and - Generate new knowledge that enhances graduates'' ability to provide high-quality, cost-effective care.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信