Development and Validation of a Machine Learning-Based Decision Support Tool for Residency Applicant Screening and Review
Abstract
Purpose: Residency programs face overwhelming numbers of residency applications, limiting holistic review. Artificial intelligence techniques have been proposed to address this challenge but have not been created. Here, a multidisciplinary team sought to develop and validate a machine learning (ML)-based decision support tool (DST) for residency applicant screening and review. Method: Categorical applicant data from the 2018, 2019, and 2020 residency application cycles (n = 8,243 applicants) at one large internal medicine residency program were downloaded from the Electronic Residency Application Service and linked to the outcome measure: interview invitation by human reviewers (n = 1,235 invites). An ML model using gradient boosting was designed using training data (80% of applicants) with over 60 applicant features (e.g., demographics, experiences, academic metrics). Model performance was validated on held-out data (20% of applicants). Sensitivity analysis was conducted without United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores. An interactive DST incorporating the ML model was designed and deployed that provided applicant- and cohort-level visualizations. Results: The ML model areas under the receiver operating characteristic and precision recall curves were 0.95 and 0.76, respectively; these changed to 0.94 and 0.72, respectively, with removal of USMLE scores. Applicants’ medical school information was an important driver of predictions—which had face validity based on the local selection process—but numerous predictors contributed. Program directors used the DST in the 2021 application cycle to select 20 applicants for interview that had been initially screened out during human review. Conclusions: The authors developed and validated an ML algorithm for predicting residency interview offers from numerous application elements with high performance—even when USMLE scores were removed. Model deployment in a DST highlighted its potential for screening candidates and helped quantify and mitigate biases existing in the selection process. Further work will incorporate unstructured textual data through natural language processing methods.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Recent landmark works have highlighted the power of AI to make educational processes such as admissions and selection more efficient.
“Educators have also become more excited by AI, as recent landmark works have highlighted the power of AI to enhance assessment (e.g.Schaye et al. 2022), and make educational processes such as admissions and selection more efficient (e.g.Burk-Rafel et al. 2021).”
From A scoping review of artificial intelligence in medical education: BEME Guide No. 84 (2024) · cites this paper as Burk-Rafel et al. 2021
Cites
Implementing Machine Learning in Health Care — Addressing Ethical Challenges
Char, D. S., Shah, N. H., & Magnus, D. (2018) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmp1714229 · Cited by 1,857 · see citing works
Machine learning in medicine: Addressing ethical challenges
Vayena, E., Blasimme, A., & Cohen, I. G. (2018) · PLOS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002689 · Cited by 912 · see citing works
The Ugly Truth About Ourselves and Our Robot Creations: The Problem of Bias and Social Inequity
Howard, A., & Borenstein, J. (2018) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-017-9975-2 · Cited by 337 · see citing works
Latent bias and the implementation of artificial intelligence in medicine
DeCamp, M., & Lindvall, C. (2020) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocaa094 · Cited by 198 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A scoping review of artificial intelligence in medical education: BEME Guide No. 84
Gordon, M., Daniel, M., Ajiboye, A., Uraiby, H., Xu, N. Y., Bartlett, R., Hanson, J., Haas, M., Spadafore, M., Grafton-Clarke, C., et al. (2024) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2024.2314198 · Cited by 543 · see citing works
“Educators have also become more excited by AI, as recent landmark works have highlighted the power of AI to enhance assessment (e.g. Schaye et al. 2022), and make educational processes such as admissions and selection more efficient (e.g. Burk-Rafel et al. 2021).”
BackgroundTriola, M. M., & Burk-Rafel, J. (2023) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000005227 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
Self-citationGenovese, A., Borna, S., Gomez-Cabello, C. A., Haider, S. A., Prabha, S., Trabilsy, M., & Forte, A. J. (2025) · Journal of Surgical Education · doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2025.103519 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Surgical Artificial Intelligence in Urology
Goldenberg, M. G. (2024) · Urologic Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2023.06.003 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
- Authors
- Burk-Rafel, J., Reinstein, I., Feng, J., Kim, M. B., Miller, L. H., Cocks, P. M., Marin, M., & Aphinyanaphongs, Y.
- Affiliations
- is assistant professor of medicine and assistant director of UME-GME innovation, Institute for Innovations in Medical Education, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York. At the time this work was completed, he was an internal medicine resident at NYU Langone Health, New York, New York; ORCID:.
- New York University (US)
- Beaumont Health (US)
- Hofstra University (US)
- NYU Langone Health (US)
- Venue
- Academic Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2021-10-27
- Volume
- 96
- Issue
- 11S
- Pages
- S54-S61
- ISSN
- 1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3187352571
- Cited by
- 65
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 6.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical Education and Admissions
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › AI and HR Technologies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- residency selection, decision support system, machine learning, internal medicine residency, USMLE scores, algorithmic bias, holistic review, graduate medical education admissions
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Decision Support Techniques, Humans, Internship and Residency, Personnel Selection, School Admission Criteria, United States
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review