Research Productivity Among Applicants Matching to Top Pediatrics Residency Programs in the Post-pass/Fail Step One Era

Background The transition to pass/fail scoring for the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step one has shifted residency selection toward alternative metrics, including research productivity. While scholarship expectations are well-characterized in competitive surgical specialties, less is known about research output among pediatrics applicants. Objective To characterize research productivity of applicants successfully matching into the Doximity-ranked top 10 pediatric residency programs and examine differences by institutional National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding rank and gender. Methods All 450 students matching into the Doximity-ranked top 10 pediatric programs in 2024 were identified using Doximity rankings and program rosters. Publications through September 27, 2024, were catalogued using Google Scholar and classified by type, authorship position, pediatrics relevance, and journal h-5 index. Applicants were stratified by medical school NIH funding rank (Top 40 vs 41-150) and gender. Welch's t-tests and Chi-square analyses compared publication metrics between groups. Results Mean publications were 2.3 ± 4.7 (median=1.0); 180/450 (40.0%) of matched applicants had zero publications. Clinical research was most common (449/1029, 43.6%), followed by basic science (269/1029, 26.1%). Students from NIH Top-40 institutions were more likely to have publications (113/159, 71.1% vs 157/291, 54.0%, p<0.001), though publication quantity and authorship metrics did not differ by institutional rank or gender among those with research experience. Research output increased progressively through medical school, particularly for pediatrics-related and first-author publications. Conclusions Successful applicants to elite pediatrics programs demonstrate heterogeneous research backgrounds, with substantial proportions matching without publications. While institutional funding influences research access, productivity metrics remain comparable across institutions and genders once students engage in scholarship, supporting holistic residency evaluation practices.