Med Students SOAR: A Model for Immersive Oncology Research Training for Early Medical Trainees.

Med Students SOAR: A Model for Immersive Oncology Research Training for Early Medical Trainees - PMC Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Search Log in Primary site navigation Search Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice J Cancer Educ . Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Jun 1. Published before final editing as: J Cancer Educ. 2026 Feb 27:10.1007/s13187-026-02837-w. doi: 10.1007/s13187-026-02837-w Med Students SOAR: A Model for Immersive Oncology Research Training for Early Medical Trainees Dominic Karl M Bolinas 1, 2 , Marvin R Bernardino 1 , Allan John R Barcena 1 , Kitz Paul D Marco 1, 2 , Hwa Young Lee 3 , Shine Chang 4 , Jillian R Gunther 5 , Marites P Melancon 1, 6 Author information Copyright and License information 1 Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA 2 Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, College of Medicine, University of the Philippines Manila, Manila 1000, Philippines 3 Cancer Prevention Research Training Program, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA 4 Department of Epidemiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA 5 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA 6 The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, TX 77030, USA Authors’ Contributions Conceptualization: Dominic Karl M. Bolinas, Marvin R. Bernardino, Allan John R. Barcena, Kitz Paul D. Marco, Hwa Young Lee, Shine Chang, Jillian R. Gunther, Marites P. Melancon; Methodology: Hwa Young Lee, Shine Chang, Jillian R. Gunther, Marites P. Melancon; Formal analysis and investigation: Dominic Karl M. Bolinas, Marvin R. Bernardino, Allan John R. Barcena, Kitz Paul D. Marco, Hwa Young Lee; Writing – original draft preparation: Dominic Karl M. Bolinas, Marvin R. Bernardino, Allan John R. Barcena, Kitz Paul D. Marco; Marites P. Melancon; Writing – review and editing: Dominic Karl M. Bolinas, Marvin R. Bernardino, Allan John R. Barcena, Kitz Paul D. Marco, Hwa Young Lee, Shine Chang, Jillian R. Gunther, Marites P. Melancon; Funding acquisition: Jillian R. Gunther, Marites P. Melancon; Resources: Marvin R. Bernardino, Allan John R. Barcena, Marites P. Melancon; Supervision: Marites P. Melancon. PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13222654  NIHMSID: NIHMS2162947  PMID: 41748959 The publisher's version of this article is available at J Cancer Educ Abstract Physician-scientists are critical to advancing evidence-based medicine and research, yet the number of trainees is declining. Limited programs for early research exposure contributes to this decreasing trend. Thus, the Medical Students Summer in Oncology at Anderson Research (Med Students SOAR) program, funded by the National Cancer Institute, was developed to provide medical students with immersive experiences in clinical and research oncology. The program engaged 25 students for 8–10 weeks mentored by MD Anderson faculty, focusing on research skill development, clinical integration, and interprofessional collaboration. To evaluate the impact to students, pre- and post- program surveys were conducted using questions on a 5-point Likert scale where higher scores correspond to higher satisfaction. Statistical analysis of the scores was performed. The students reported high satisfaction and meaningful impact, particularly faculty mentor interactions (87%, 20/23), mentor engagement frequency (87%, 20/23), and mentor communication (78%, 18/23). Furthermore, students (91-100%) reported that their mentors adequately provided career guidance and professional networking. The students showed significant gains in career knowledge (4.1→4.4, p=.04), self-efficacy (3.8→4.3, p=.007), and science identity (3.9→4.2, p=.06). There was also a significantly higher career intention to pursue a research career (3.4→3.8, p=.013) and a significant decrease in the experience of imposter phenomenon (2.4→2.0, p=.007). After a one-year follow up survey, all respondents continued research where they garnered fifteen journal publications (six first-author), eight conference proceedings, and numerous ongoing manuscripts. The Med Students SOAR program demonstrated that structured, mentored oncology research program enhanced medical students’ skills, career knowledge, and engagement in cancer research. Keywords: oncology, medical students, research exposure Introduction Advancing the field of oncology increasingly depends on a workforce capable of integrating cutting-edge biomedical research with clinical expertise. Yet this need is constrained by the persistent lack of physicians who are adept in both domains. The traditional medical curricula primarily focus on clinical proficiency while providing limited training to hone research skills ( 1 ). Recent reports have emphasized critical early research exposure to broaden career pathways and to cultivate critical thinking, problem-solving, and scientific communication in medical students ( 2 ). Therefore, adequate opportunities should be made available to medical students so they can develop essential competencies and boost research involvement. Physician-scientists play a central role in bridging the translational gap between laboratory research and clinical application. However, there is a concerning decline in their numbers due to prolonged training requirements, the challenge of balancing academic demands with experimental work, and reduced interaction with research mentors ( 3 ). The scarcity of training programs where medical students find role models and meaningful research interaction exacerbate this issue. This underscores the need to attract more medical students to research-intensive careers. The acceleration of biomedical innovation in oncology has widened the divide between traditional medical training and scientific literacy. This disconnect can impede the clinician’s ability to incorporate novel therapies into patient care and practice evidence-based medicine ( 4 ). To address these gaps, there must be an initiative to develop innovative and collaborative training programs that engage cancer researchers, medical mentors, and clinicians. Although many medical schools have begun incorporating research courses into their curricula, few provide immersive experiences within active research institutions. Despite recent evidence showing the impact of early research exposure to career intentions of medical research ( 5 ), there is still an unmet need for research-oriented training programs for medical students. Providing early research exposure in medical students is crucial to support their academic growth and intellectual interests. Through these opportunities, students engage with inspiring role models such as clinician scientists, allied health professionals, and research trainees, who offer diverse perspectives on integrating research into clinical practice. These experiences also provide direct mentorship and career guidance while encouraging camaraderie among like-minded peers to empower students in pursuing research. In recognition of the critical importance of promoting research experience in medical students, the Medical Students Summer in Oncology at Anderson Research (Med Students SOAR) program was initiated. The goal of the program is to promote oncologic research and care among future physicians through early introduction to research. This program is the only summer program at MD Anderson that is exclusively focused on providing cancer research experience for medical students across various oncologic disciplines. Furthermore, the program provides quality and unique exposure with the program coordinators, faculty, and peer mentors that are critical at this career developmental phase. In this paper, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness of research immersive program in fostering interest in oncologic research among medical students and determining whether these experiences lead to increased research involvement. METHODS Program Structure, Mentor Matching, and Selection Process The Med SOAR program, funded by the National Cancer Institute (R25 CA265800-01A1), aims to provide medical students with immersive experience and professional development in clinical and research oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. Med Students SOAR engaged 25 first-year medical students for an intense 8–10-week period to inspire motivation and provide early research exposure. Full-time faculty members were invited to participate as mentors of medical students in developing an intense, scientifically and clinically relevant project. No incentives were offered to the mentors for participation, other than the opportunity to stimulate research interest in an academically strong student. Applications for the Med Students SOAR opened in late fall, with acceptances finalized in early March. Eligible applicants were first-year medical students enrolled at U.S. medical schools with an interest in cancer research. The selection followed a rigorous, holistic review of academic performance, extracurricular involvement, and a bias-free interview. The applicants submitted academic background information, a résumé, research interests, and a personal statement. Students ranked 3–5 faculty mentors based on provided expertise profiles and one-on-one interviews with program directors. Most students were matched with one of their top two mentor choices. Twenty-five students were accepted for the Summer 2024 program, which began the first Monday of June. Programmatic activities During the program, students engaged in individualized, cancer-focused research projects under the guidance of faculty mentors selected through an intuitive and logical mentor-matching process. Consistent with the principle that training is not a one-size-fits-all experience, participants were given the choice to pursue clinical observation, basic or translational research, or a combination of both, with structured adherence to NIH training principles such as the development and use of Individual Development Plans (IDPs). Students also participated in lectures and workshops to gain knowledge and to develop effective scientific communication skills. Career development was supported through networking opportunities with faculty members and near-peer mentoring with residents, postdoctoral fellows, and clinical fellows. Experiential learning included patient simulation activities, clinical observations across multiple oncology subspecialties, and exposure to oncologic history-taking and physical examination, all designed to promote multidisciplinary oncologic care and enhance interprofessional communication skills. The program culminated in oral and poster presentations of students’ research findings. With faculty mentor approval, participants had the option to upload abstracts and posters for permanent hosting in MD Anderson’s Research Medical Library OpenWorks repository, where digital object identifiers (DOIs) were assigned. Program Evaluation and Data Analysis To evaluate the effectiveness of the program, an online pre-summer and an end-of-summer survey was administered two weeks before and after the program, respectively. Since the student data were collected for the purpose of program evaluation, the project was approved as exempt, and a waiver for informed consent was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (IRB #2021–0551 exemption). The survey questionnaires in both surveys were modified and adapted using a Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) framework. SCCT developed by Lent et al. (1994) was used to assess students’ individual and contextual factors influencing career development and decision-making ( 6 ). The constructs assessed in the surveys included eleven self-efficacy items (confidence in conducting research) adapted from Byars-Winston (2016) ( 7 ); six career knowledge items developed by internal content experts; three science identity items from Chemers et al (2011) ( 8 ), six impostor phenomenon items from Leary et al. (2000) ( 9 ); nine items assessing mentoring skills adapted from domains of the Mentoring Competency Assessment ( 10 ); three mentoring relationship items developed by the internal content experts; seven sense of belonging questions adapted from Belanger et al. (2020) ( 11 ); and seven career intention questions created by the internal content experts. These items used a 5-point Likert scale, with higher scores, indicating more favorable responses, except for the impostor phenomenon scale. Since mentoring skills were assessed only in the end-of-summer survey, frequencies for each item were reported. To compare pre- and end-of-the surveys, a series of repeated measures ANOVAs was conducted to evaluate the significant difference ( p < 0.05) of the students’ experiences before and after the program. Furthermore, an annual survey was conducted one year after the program ended to evaluate persistence of research involvement. RESULTS Student Demographics Out of 132 applicants, 25 students were accepted (19% acceptance rate) and completed the program. The demographics and other features of the students are summarized in Table 1 . Most students were enrolled in a public medical school (18, 72.0%) and are female (15, 60.0%). The majority of the students are of Asian descent (13, 52.0%). Meanwhile, only 16% of them are first generation college graduates. In terms of the highest educational attainment for parents, about a third of the students have mothers that attained at least a graduate degree (9, 36.0%) and fathers that attained at least an undergraduate degree (9, 36.0%). Table 1. Sociodemographic profile of the accepted applicants in Med Students SOAR 2024. Item No. of students (%) Public vs Private College Public 18 (72.0%) Private 7 (28.0%) Sex Male 10 (40.0%) Female 15 (60.0%) Ethnicity Asian 13 (52.0%) White/Anglo/European Descent 8 (32.0%) Black/African American/African Descent 2 (8.0%) Multiracial 1 (4.0%) Undisclosed 1 (4.0%) 1st Generation College Graduate Yes 21 (84.0%) No 4 (16.0%) Highest Education Attainment (Maternal) Graduate Degree 9 (36.0%) High School 6 (24.0%) Undergraduate Degree (Bachelor’s or Technical) 4 (16.0%) Advanced Degree (MD, PhD, Others) 3 (12.0%) Associate Degree 2 (8.0%) Some College 1 (4.0%) Highest Educational Attainment (Paternal) Undergraduate Degree (Bachelor’s or Technical) 9 (36.0%) Advanced Degree (MD, PhD, Other) 6 (24.0%) Graduate Degree 4 (16.0%) High School 4 (16.0%) Associate Degree 1 (4.0%) Trade/Technical Program/Degree 1 (4.0%) Open in a new tab Mentorship experience At the end of the program, 23/25 (92.0%) students responded to the post-summer survey. Mentor matching was done for faculty across diverse oncologic specialties, including breast medical oncology, genitourinary medical oncology, gynecologic oncology and reproductive medicine, head and neck surgery, hematopoietic biology and malignancy, immunology, infectious diseases, interventional radiology, neurosurgery, orthopedic oncology, pulmonary medicine, radiation oncology, and radiation physics, sarcoma medical oncology, and thoracic, head, neck medical oncology. In general, the inaugural cohort reported high satisfaction in terms of the mentorship experience quality during the program ( Figure 1 ). The students described strong mentorship as scoring “very high/high” in faculty interactions (87%, 20/23), mentor engagement frequency (87%, 20/23), and mentor communication (78%, 18/23). Regarding questions assessing mentoring skills most students “strongly agreed/agreed” that their mentors gave them adequate time to attend seminars and training sessions (91%, 21/23) and provided resources to accomplish their projects (100%, 23/23). Furthermore, all the students “strongly agreed/agreed” that their mentors fostered an atmosphere of cooperation, encouraged a learning environment, and demonstrated fair and equal treatment. A large majority felt that mentors facilitated interprofessional networking, as reflected by 91% who strongly agreed/agreed. Overall, most of the students (91-100%) “strongly agreed/agreed” that their mentors provided career guidance and fostered professional networking and inclusion, and all respondents maintained their mentor relationship after the program. Figure 1. Open in a new tab Responses of medical students to questions on the quality of mentoring experience during the Med Students SOAR program. Personal Growth and Career Intentions When comparing pre- and post-survey responses, the students reported significant gains in mean scale scores for career knowledge (4.1→4.4, p=.04), self-efficacy in research (3.8→4.3, p=.007), with a marginal improvement in science identity (3.9→4.2, p=.06). The students showed little to no change in mean scale scores for sense of belonging in a cancer-related career. The students also showed a significantly higher career intention to pursue an academic research career (3.4→3.8, p=.013) and a significant decrease in mean scale scores on the imposter phenomenon scale (2.4→2.0, p=.007). Student Satisfaction and Research Productivity Almost all (96%) of the students ranked SOAR as their top summer program choice and would recommend it to peers. Furthermore, 82% will continue to work with the research team at MD Anderson once the summer program is over. Qualitative feedback highlighted research presentations, clinical shadowing, simulation sessions, and professional development seminars as most valuable. A follow up survey conducted a year after the program ended garnered 15/25 respondents. Among those who responded, all students (15/15) reported that they are actively involved in research with their mentors from the Med Students SOAR program. All of them continued their research project from the summer program while some also joined other research projects in their original schools. Some of the students have also shifted from basic science to clinical research, including topics on bioinformatics and treatment outcomes in oncology. Majority (9/15) of the respondents presented their work in multiple symposia and conference proceedings. Most of the respondents continued research afterwards where they garnered a total of 15 journal publications, 6 of which as the first author, 8 conference proceedings, and numerous ongoing manuscripts. Four of the publications were with their faculty mentors, including 2 first-author papers and a review article published in Radiology, which is the highest ranked journal in the field of radiology and medical imaging ( 12 – 15 ). In addition, the students had ongoing manuscripts related to their work during the program, with 5 published as preprints in online repositories ( 16 – 19 ). Discussion In this paper, we discussed the impact of early research exposure through the Med Students SOAR program on first-year medical students. Based on survey responses, the medical students highly value robust mentorship relationships that actively cultivate research skills and development. Furthermore, significant improvement in the student’s research knowledge and career intentions contributed to personal growth. Lastly, the students evaluated the program with high satisfaction reporting sustainable effects in professional relationships and research development. Strong mentorship played a major role in promoting research involvement among medical students. Faculty interactions, engagement, and communication provided students the proper avenue for seeking inspiration for research career development. In a similar study, good mentee-mentor relationships induced optimistic feelings in the students in terms of pursuing the research field ( 20 ). Furthermore, it is important that mentees feel aligned with their mentors. One-on-one interviews with program directors helped medical students understand faculty research interests, guiding those uncertain about their research focus toward suitable mentors and projects. To support research skill development and interprofessional networking, mentors must be carefully chosen for their willingness to spend the time and accept the responsibility ( 21 ). Thus, the medical students were insightfully paired with the most compatible mentor encouraging research career development The program simulated a learning environment that supported students’ personal growth and strengthened intentions about pursuing research. The students described feeling more knowledgeable and increased independence to carry out research tasks, suggesting that the program’s structure and activities were effective in building both skills and self-efficacy in research. Similarly, a study reviewing three different NIH-funded programs reported that combined experiential, didactic, and mentoring activities significantly increased research self-efficacy of medical students, regardless of school ranking, and type of research project ( 22 ). This indicates that the program provided adequate insight into oncologic research, opening personally appropriate career pathways in medical students. In a similar study, medical students have reported that extracurricular research participation promoted interests in pursuing an academic career ( 23 ). They also reported a stronger sense of belonging within the research-oriented course and decrease in experience for imposter phenomenon, highlighting how feeling connected to a community can shape a students’ engagement with research. Together, these findings suggest that the program not only strengthened students’ readiness for research but also encouraged a deeper interest in research-focused career paths. This paper only discusses the short-term outcomes after the first year of the Med Students SOAR program. While the students formed sustainable relationships with their mentors and continued to produce outstanding research outputs the following year, longer-term follow-up is needed to evaluate the impact of this experience on their future academic productivity as independent professionals. Although previous evidence showed lasting impacts of early exposure to research training ( 5 ), there is a wider scope of factors influencing the scientific and professional development of medical students, particularly the different working environments and complexity of future career issues ( 24 ). Additionally, it remains to be seen how this program influences care in cancer patients, which is not limited to specialists. While not all students in the program may eventually become oncologists, training on cancer research and oncologic care can also be helpful to non-oncologists who also play crucial roles in caring for cancer patients. For instance, primary care physicians play important roles in screening, early diagnosis, and management of long-term survivorship issues which have been shown to affect cancer outcomes ( 25 ). The impact of the program in this regard can also be investigated in future studies. Overall, the students regarded the program with high satisfaction in terms of research-related activities and experience despite its early stages. Furthermore, this report summarized findings that suggest substantial impact to the medical students but the long-term implications in their career trajectories is yet to be determined. Conclusion The Med Students SOAR program showed promising results in fostering good mentorship, broadening knowledge, and deepening nurturing research career interests in medical students. High satisfaction, sustained mentor relationships, tangible outputs, and psychosocial improvements support the Med Students SOAR program as a scalable, evidence-based model for developing the next generation of physician-scientists. Furthermore, this paper aids in exploring other preventative measures on the waning interest of physicians in pursuing academic research training. Despite limitations, this illustrates the potential impact of research-oriented programs in inspiring future physician-scientists. These early exposure fuels the drive towards the practice of evidence-based oncology and the development of scientific leaders in academic medicine. Acknowledgements The authors thank the MD Anderson’s Simulation Center team, led by Dr. James Cavalier and Shelita Kimble, for their support and training; Dr. Rama Soundararajan for proving a professional workshop; the clinical physicians who facilitated shadowing experiences; and the Research and Trainee Programs and CATALYST for onboarding and seminars, respectively. Funding This work was funded by the National Institutes of Health—National Cancer Institute (R25 CA265800-01A1) and CATALYST. The funders played no role in collection, analysis, interpretation of data, or writing of the report. Footnotes Ethics Approval. This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Permission to conduct this study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (IRB #2021–0551 exemption). Competing interests. The authors have no conflict of interest for this study References 1. Yasar Ahmed MHT, Simaa Khayal. Integrating Research and Teaching in Medical Education: Challenges, Strategies, and Implications for Healthcare. Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism. 2024. Jan 1;12(1). [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 2. Afshar ZS, Esmaeli S, Azhar F, Rathan R. Early Exposure to Research: Its Impact on Medical Students’ Educational Experience and Interest in Future Research. New Emirates Medical Journal. 2025;5(1). [ Google Scholar ] 3. Sandrone S, Stenfors T, Sandrone S, Stenfors T. Physician-scientists’ perspectives on key factors, emotions and feelings about selecting and attending continuous professional development events: a mixed-method study. BMC Medical Education 2024. 24:1. 2024-November-14;24(1). [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 4. Lee GSJ, Chin YH, Jiang AA, Mg CH, Nistala KRY, Iyer SG, et al. Teaching Medical Research to Medical Students: a Systematic Review. Medical Science Educator 2021. 31:2. 2021-01-08;31(2). [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 5. Azoulay P, Greenblatt WH, Heggeness ML. Long-term effects from early exposure to research: Evidence from the NIH “Yellow Berets”. Research Policy. 2021/November/01;50(9). [ Google Scholar ] 6. Lent RW, Brown SD, Hackett G. Toward a Unifying Social Cognitive Theory of Career and Academic Interest, Choice, and Performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 1994/August/01;45(1). [ Google Scholar ] 7. Byars-Winston A, Rogers J, Branchaw J, Pribbenow C, Hanke R, Pfund C. New Measures Assessing Predictors of Academic Persistence for Historically Underrepresented Racial/Ethnic Undergraduates in Science. CBE—Life Sciences Education. 2017-October-13;15(3). [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 8. Chemers MM, Zurbriggen EL, Syed M, Goza BK, Bearman S. SPSSI Journals. Journal of Social Issues. 2011/September/01;67(3). [ Google Scholar ] 9. Leary MR, Patton KM, Orlando AE, Funk WW. The Impostor Phenomenon: Self-Perceptions, Reflected Appraisals, and Interpersonal Strategies. Journal of Personality. 2000/August/01;68(4). [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 10. Fleming M, House S, Hanson V, Yu L, Garbutt J, McGee R, et al. The Mentoring Competency Assessment: validation of a new instrument to evaluate skills of research mentors - PubMed. Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges. 2013. Jul;88(7). [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 11. Belanger AL, Joshi MP, Fuesting MA, Weisgram ES, Claypool HM, Diekman AB, Aimee L. Belanger MPJ, Fuesting Melissa A,Weisgram Erica S,Claypool Heather M,Diekman Amanda B. Putting Belonging in Context: Communal Affordances Signal Belonging in STEM. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2020-August;46(8). [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 12. Ostos-Mendoza KC, Saraiba-Rabanales V, Gutierrez-Gallegos P, Wang E, Koutroumpakis E, Kumar S, et al. Immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated myocarditis: a review of current state of knowledge. J Cardiovasc Aging 2025;5:5. 2025-February-28;5(1). [ Google Scholar ] 13. Barcena AJR, Mishra A, Lopez S, Bernardino M, Bolinas DKM, Huang SY, Melancon MP. Novel Bone Materials and Adjunctive Approaches in Percutaneous Vertebral Augmentation for Neoplastic Vertebral Compression Fractures. Radiology. 2025-December-23. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 14. Yang NX, Rosamilia GL, Arifin AJ, Salem AF, Yoder AK, Keatts SA, et al. Surgical Reconstruction Toxicity Following Hypofractionated Adjuvant Radiation Therapy for Primary Cutaneous Melanoma. Practical Radiation Oncology. 2025/December/09. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 15. Sheikh A, Curran MA. Frontiers | The influence of the microbiome on radiotherapy and DNA damage responses. Frontiers in Oncology. 2025/March/17;15. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 16. McCullum L, Joshi SJ, Godinich BM, Gerafian P, Gaur R, Alakayleh Q, et al. Review: Adaptive Radiation Therapy for Head and Neck Cancer. arXiv. 2025/August/01. [ Google Scholar ] 17. Humbert-Vidan L, Castelo AH, He R, Dijk LVv, Rhee DJ, Wang C, et al. Image-based Mandibular and Maxillary Parcellation and Annotation using Computer Tomography (IMPACT): A Deep Learning-based Clinical Tool for Orodental Dose Estimation and Osteoradionecrosis Assessment. medRxiv. 2025-March-20. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 18. Netherton TJ, Aggarwal A, Alakayleh Q, Beadle BM, Brooks C, Burger H, et al. AI-Powered Radiotherapy for Resource-Limited Settings: Advancing Cervical and Prostate Cancer Treatment Planning with the Radiation Planning Assistant (RPA). medRxiv. 2025-October-02. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 19. Singh P, Raychaudhuri D, Chakraborty B, Meher S, Tannir AJ, Majumdar A, et al. Loss of KDM6A-mediated genomic instability and metabolic reprogramming differentially regulates responses to immune checkpoint therapy and chemotherapy in bladder cancer. bioRxiv. 2024-November-03. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 20. Sakushima K, Mishina H, Fukuhara S, Sada K, Koizumi J, Sugioka T, et al. Mentoring the next generation of physician-scientists in Japan: a cross-sectional survey of mentees in six academic medical centers. BMC Medical Education 2015. 15:1. 2015-March-19;15(1). [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 21. Anderson CB, Lee HY, Byars-Winston A, Baldwin CD, Cameron C, Chang S, Cheryl B. Anderson HYL, Byars-Winston Angela,Baldwin Constance D,Cameron Carrie,Chang Shine. Assessment of Scientific Communication Self-efficacy, Interest, and Outcome Expectations for Career Development in Academic Medicine.Journal of Career Assessment. 2016-February;24(1). [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 22. Black ML, Curran MC, Golshan S, Daly R, Depp C, Kelly C, Jeste DV. Summer Research Training for Medical Students: Impact on Research Self-Efficacy.Clinical and Translational Science. 2013/December/01;6(6). [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 23. Nikkar-Esfahani A, Jamjoom AAB, Fitzgerald JEF. Extracurricular participation in research and audit by medical students: Opportunities, obstacles, motivation and outcomes. Medical Teacher. 2012-May-1;34(5). [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 24. Ommering BWC, Blankenstein FMv, Waaijer CJF, Dekker FW, Ommering BWC, Blankenstein FMv, et al. Future physician-scientists: could we catch them young? Factors influencing intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for research among first-year medical students. Perspectives on Medical Education. 2018-07-13T00:00:00+00:00;7(4). [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 25. Grunfeld E, Earle C. The interface between primary and oncology specialty care: treatment through survivorship - PubMed. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs. 2010;2010(40). [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (412.3 KB) Cite Collections Permalink RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top

Related documents

• Innovation in Medical Education and Clinical Practice : An Exploration of Today’s Revolutionary Concepts, Tools and Applications / edited by Summer S. Chahin, Roger W. Apple, Cheryl A. Dickson, Berrin Ergun-Longmire#1153961
• Exploring the Current Use of Educational Technologies in the Oncology Domain Across Europe: A Cross-Sectional Study.#615910
• Patient and Provider Experiences With Precision Oncology: Qualitative Descriptive Study at the Department of Veterans Affairs.#143347
• What Makes Medical Education Meaningful: A Qualitative Evaluation of Student and Educator Perspectives on UK Clinical Education.#67540
• Educational needs in neuro-oncology: Insights from the European Society for Medical Oncology Central Nervous System Faculty Survey.#269521