Rising young faculty

[Guest]

where is the best spinal cord research being done?

[Guest]

(04-02-2021, 11:14 AM)Blue Fire Wrote:

(03-31-2021, 09:38 PM)Guest Wrote:

(03-31-2021, 06:48 PM)Guest Wrote:

(03-31-2021, 06:11 PM)Guest Wrote:

(03-31-2021, 05:54 PM)Guest Wrote: Been seeing rumblings on Dan Lim over at UCSF. His research seems to be on developmental neurobiology... seems so out of the wheelhouse from neurosurgery. Why even do neurosurgery if the man operates 1/2 a day a week and then does his non-neurosurgical research?

If you want to innovate in a field, you need top-tier physician-scientists in your discipline. High impact research is basic science research that is published in journals like Cell, Nature, Science and their sub journals. These faculty members with ability in this area need to be supported and trainees should be encouraged to pursue this path. The pressure on trainees specialty to churn out retrospective chart reviews and case series, does very little to move the field forward.

True, yet every program values med students with 10 4th author retrospective chart reviews.

This. Evaluators mostly emphasis quantity over quality (with the exception of something really massive like a paper in one of the highest impact journals like NEJM, Cell, Nature which most applicants won't have) - otherwise they care more about the number of resume lines

I’m a resident at a large academic institution, we regularly reject applicants on the basis of having 100 low impact/insignifiant pubs. Just says a lot about the ethos of quantity over quality. Our PD is very adamant about it.

Odd. What do you consider low-impact just out of curiosity? Your institution's philosophy makes sense in theory but it's not really up to students whether or not they exclusively do super significant and impactful work, like how would an MS1 be expected to decline an offer from an attending/resident to help with a project because it's low-impact, and how would they even know whether or not it's significant, meaningful research?

It's not like med students get to pick between doing 100 case reports/reviews or doing a single super important RCT/clinical trial.. it's not up to us.

[Guest]

(04-02-2021, 02:33 PM)Guest Wrote:

(04-02-2021, 11:14 AM)Blue Fire Wrote:

(03-31-2021, 09:38 PM)Guest Wrote:

(03-31-2021, 06:48 PM)Guest Wrote:

(03-31-2021, 06:11 PM)Guest Wrote: If you want to innovate in a field, you need top-tier physician-scientists in your discipline. High impact research is basic science research that is published in journals like Cell, Nature, Science and their sub journals. These faculty members with ability in this area need to be supported and trainees should be encouraged to pursue this path. The pressure on trainees specialty to churn out retrospective chart reviews and case series, does very little to move the field forward.

True, yet every program values med students with 10 4th author retrospective chart reviews.

This. Evaluators mostly emphasis quantity over quality (with the exception of something really massive like a paper in one of the highest impact journals like NEJM, Cell, Nature which most applicants won't have) - otherwise they care more about the number of resume lines

I’m a resident at a large academic institution, we regularly reject applicants on the basis of having 100 low impact/insignifiant pubs. Just says a lot about the ethos of quantity over quality. Our PD is very adamant about it.

Odd. What do you consider low-impact just out of curiosity? Your institution's philosophy makes sense in theory but it's not really up to students whether or not they exclusively do super significant and impactful work, like how would an MS1 be expected to decline an offer from an attending/resident to help with a project because it's low-impact, and how would they even know whether or not it's significant, meaningful research?

It's not like med students get to pick between doing 100 case reports/reviews or doing a single super important RCT/clinical trial.. it's not up to us.

Personally, I would be more impressed by a single first author basic science paper off (3-4 years of work) in a respected mid tier journal then 20+ chart reviews.

[drstrange]

There are times when you have no idea what the impact of your work will be. You think, will people actually read my paper? Will I get any citations? But, having gotten work out on both sides of the low/high impact coin, you generally have some idea of how your paper will land.

The honest truth is that the majority of work (95+%) will never get read again 5 years after it comes out - even by the authors themselves. In neurosurgery, there are <10 papers every year that truly matter. And by that I mean papers that people read, think about and then use to modify their own practice or mindset.

There are several people in our field that have been influential careers out of just a handful of papers. Realistically, great surgeon scientists have limited time to actually reflect and think deeply. One truly great insight and a successful clinical practice are enough to make a dent. To say that 2 or 3 of us find that each year is a stretch.

There is honest utility in publishing for volume. You have to know how to write in order to capitalize on your great research when it happens. Writing voluminously helps with that. It has taken me the better part of a decade to find a style and approach to writing. Now I have a system and even still it can be difficult.

I'm not impressed with salami science but there are a great many who are. One thing that I know for certain is that NIH study sections take all of 10 seconds to see through that garbage. Science recognize science. If you want a career outside of blasting out 20 papers/yr, you need something to put into a 5 page biosketch.

[Guest]

(04-02-2021, 02:21 PM)Guest Wrote: where is the best spinal cord research being done?

Spinal cord stimulation for SCI is one of the most exciting developments in spinal cord research. Nearly everyone of note in the field is linked to UCLA in one way or another.

[Guest]

(04-02-2021, 03:06 PM)Guest Wrote:

(04-02-2021, 02:33 PM)Guest Wrote:

(04-02-2021, 11:14 AM)Blue Fire Wrote:

(03-31-2021, 09:38 PM)Guest Wrote:

(03-31-2021, 06:48 PM)Guest Wrote: True, yet every program values med students with 10 4th author retrospective chart reviews.

This. Evaluators mostly emphasis quantity over quality (with the exception of something really massive like a paper in one of the highest impact journals like NEJM, Cell, Nature which most applicants won't have) - otherwise they care more about the number of resume lines

I’m a resident at a large academic institution, we regularly reject applicants on the basis of having 100 low impact/insignifiant pubs. Just says a lot about the ethos of quantity over quality. Our PD is very adamant about it.

Odd. What do you consider low-impact just out of curiosity? Your institution's philosophy makes sense in theory but it's not really up to students whether or not they exclusively do super significant and impactful work, like how would an MS1 be expected to decline an offer from an attending/resident to help with a project because it's low-impact, and how would they even know whether or not it's significant, meaningful research?

It's not like med students get to pick between doing 100 case reports/reviews or doing a single super important RCT/clinical trial.. it's not up to us.

Personally, I would be more impressed by a single first author basic science paper off (3-4 years of work) in a respected mid tier journal then 20+ chart reviews.

Right, of course, but that's not logistically possible for the vast majority of people pursuing a career in neurosurgery. Nor should basic science be the most important priority for most future surgeons. Most med students have 1 research year during med school maximum, so what's are they supposed to do to have a meaningful impact? Again, none of us is actively rejecting the opportunity to be involved in a huge game-changing RCT so that we can do chart reviews and case reports. There's just no real alternative unless you want to take 4+ years off of school. So judging people negatively because they have a ton of low-impact papers is kind of bizarre, when the only alternative is to have a lower number of similarly low-impact papers.

[Guest]

Is World Neurosurgergry super low? I know everyone praises red and white journals.

[Guest]

In our program, first author in red or white is considered very impressive. Now if we’re comparing a student with 5 strong first author red papers and a student with 20 papers in world, cnn, jcns, etc... it’s tough b/c usually the difference is in opportunities conferred by the home program. The kid with 20 pubs clearly grinded to get that many (assuming they’re top 3 author consistently).. so I think it’s not fair to discount that and shows to us commitment to nsgy and the ability to follow through projects consistently. Both viewed favorably imo. Also exceedingly rare for applicant to have paper in nature or cell unless they’re making career switch or are exceptionally strong md/phd. My two cents

[Guest]

(04-02-2021, 02:21 PM)Guest Wrote: where is the best spinal cord research being done?

Toronto.

[Guest]

(04-03-2021, 08:01 PM)Guest Wrote:

(04-02-2021, 02:21 PM)Guest Wrote: where is the best spinal cord research being done?

Toronto.

Brian Kwon at Vancouver/university of British Columbia is also doing some good work. Collaborated with Fehlings at Toronto sometimes