Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:The number of graduates from accelerated 3-year MD (A3YP) programs has increased over the past decade. Previous work showed that A3YP graduates perform comparably to non-accelerated (4-year) graduates from the same medical schools on mid-year and end-year Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) harmonized milestones. In shifting to the residency program perspective, it remains unclear how the performance of A3YP graduates compares to non-accelerated graduates including traditional 4-year, international, and osteopathic medical school graduates. OBJECTIVE:To compare the intern performance of A3YP graduates compared with non-accelerated graduates using mid-year and end-year ACGME milestones in Internal Medicine (IM) residency programs. DESIGN/METHODS:The study employed a retrospective cohort design, hypothesizing that graduates from A3YPs were comparable to non-accelerated graduates in the same program. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:108 interns who graduated from A3YP were compared to 3,542 interns from non-accelerated programs at the same 34 IM residency programs. MAIN MEASURES/METHODS:Descriptive statistics were provided for ACGME milestone performance. Cross-classified random-effects regression was used to account for residency program effects and estimate group differences. KEY RESULTS/RESULTS:After controlling for residency programs, the milestone ratings of A3YP graduates were higher in all competency domains at mid-year except practice-based learning and improvement (PBLI) at .04 (P = .089) (coefficients ranged from 0.08 for medical knowledge (MK) (P < .001) to 0.23 in professionalism (PROF) (P < .001)). These differences persisted at the end-year period (coefficients ranged from 0.05 in PBLI (P = .039) to 0.17 in PROF (P < .001)) except MK at .02 (P = .656). Patient care differences were 0.15 (P < .001) at mid- and 0.14 (P = .005) at end-year. CONCLUSIONS:This study contributes to the literature demonstrating that interns graduating from A3YP are at least equivalent in terms of milestone assessment and possibly better in the competencies of PC and PROF than their non-accelerated counterparts.

Cytology cell block specimens are essential for diagnosing patients with advanced-stage malignancy and often represents the only available strategy for therapeutic biomarker evaluation. The use of cell blocks preserves tumor cells, captures high-grade or metastatic populations, and retains meaningful microenvironmental context, making them well suited for IHC analysis. With the rapid expansion of computational pathology, deep learning-assisted biomarker interpretation in cell blocks is emerging as a promising frontier for improving reproducibility, reducing interobserver variability, and enabling quantitative assessment of spatial tumor-immune interactions. Because many treatment-defining biomarkers are routinely assessed on cytology cell blocks, this mini-review highlights artificial intelligence-based applications for PD-L1, HER2, ER/PR, Ki-67, ALK/ROS1, BRAF V600E, and p16 markers that directly inform decisions about immunotherapy, targeted therapy, and hormone therapy. Also reviewed are emerging predictive models that convey biomarker status directly from morphology, extending the utility of artificial intelligence beyond conventional IHC interpretation. Finally, spatial pathobiology-related opportunities afforded by cell block preparations are discussed, and future directions for integrating artificial intelligence-enabled analysis into cytology workflows are outlined. Together, these advances position cytology cell blocks as an important platform for computational biomarker interpretation and morphology-driven precision oncology.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Increasing student costs and financial burden of medical education necessitate an exploration of economically viable alternatives. Accelerated 3-year MD programs (A3YPs) are a promising solution, offering shorter training and potentially lower debt. This study calculated the additional financial value and potential debt savings inherent in A3YPs vs traditional 4-year MD programs (4YPs), focusing on net present value (NPV) (ie, current worth of future cash flows). METHOD/METHODS:The authors used NPV analysis to evaluate the differential financial investment and expected future cash flows for A3YP students graduating from 8 US medical schools in 2022 compared with 4YP graduates. The analysis considered tuition costs, residency and practicing physician salaries, and medical educational debt as the basis for the financial calculations. The analysis extended from the first year of medical school in 2020 through 1 year of postresidency practice in 2026, assuming contiguous training with no gaps and no fellowship training, including 7 years for the A3YP timeline. RESULTS:Sixty-six students graduated A3YPs from the 8 participating schools in 2022 (range, 3-17 graduates per school; mean, 8 graduates). The NPV for A3YP graduates was $240,349 higher per graduate compared with 4YP graduates. The most significant contribution to this higher NPV was the additional year of physician-level salary received by A3YP graduates. Additional contributions included savings from avoiding a fourth year of tuition and lower loan repayment costs due to decreased medical educational debt for A3YP graduates. CONCLUSIONS:This study offers a novel contribution to the ongoing discourse regarding the financial implications of medical education by providing a comprehensive NPV analysis comparing A3YPs with traditional 4YPs. Accelerated 3-year programs offer considerable financial advantages over 4YPs, which has implications for reducing medical student indebtedness and potentially addressing physician workforce shortages. Further research is necessary to explore the specific impacts on individual schools and specialties.

Accelerated 3-year medical school programs (A3YP) allow students to complete medical school in 3 years rather than the traditional 4-year program (4YP). This paper describes the perspective of 14 A3YPs, exploring the rate of and reasons for transition out of an accelerated pathway into a traditional 4YP. As of 2023, 19% of students in A3YP transitioned to 4YP. The authors provide practical recommendations to guide transitions based on pooled experiences and expert consensus from members of the Consortium of Accelerated Medical Pathway Programs (CAMPP). Having clear policies that define academic, clinical, and professional expectations and processes to guide transition is important.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:For accelerated 3-year MD (3YMD) pathways to be fully adopted in medical education, a comprehensive analysis of outcome data is needed. This study includes 7 accelerated 3YMD graduating classes at NYU Grossman School of Medicine (NYUGSOM) and reports on outcomes from both medical school and internship compared to their 4-year MD (4YMD) counterparts. METHOD/METHODS:Outcomes across the undergraduate-graduate medical education continuum for the first 7 classes of NYUGSOM graduates (matriculated from 2013-2019) from the accelerated 3YMD (n = 136) and 4YMD pathways (n = 681) were compared. For the internship outcomes, 3YMD interns were compared with 4YMD interns who graduated from NYUGSOM and all 4YMD interns (4YMD graduates from NYUGSOM and any other medical school) at NYUGSOM residencies. RESULTS:Accelerated 3YMD students were approximately 5 months older at admission and had higher multiple mini-interview scores than 4YMD students. Overall, accelerated 3YMD students performed similarly to 4YMD students during medical school and internship. Significant differences included higher performance by 3YMD students on preclerkship exams and lower performance on Steps 1 and 2 (average: 5.6 and 8.3 fewer points, respectively) and the physical examination portion of the NYUGSOM Comprehensive Clinical Skills Exam. Internship data indicated comparable team assessments across all residencies, statistically significant higher performance on Step 3 when compared to all 4YMD interns, and, in internal medicine, comparable clinical reasoning between 3YMD and all 4YMD interns. When comparing 3YMD interns to all 4YMD interns in the internal medicine residency program, 3YMD interns had a statistically significantly higher performance on milestones. CONCLUSIONS:The outcomes from 7 years of graduating accelerated 3YMD students at NYUGSOM show similar performance in medical school and early residency to 4YMD graduates. Long-term study of accelerated 3YMD students from NYUGSOM and other medical schools is needed to further validate the success of this innovative medical education pathway.

INTRODUCTION/UNASSIGNED:Over the past decade, the growth of accelerated three-year MD (3YMD) programs has flourished. In 2015, with support from the Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation, the Consortium of Medical Pathway Programs (CAMPP) started with eight North American medical schools. The objective of this paper is to evaluate the current state of the 3YMD programs. MATERIAL AND METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Since 2015, the CAMPP has tracked new and prospective 3YMD programs. An electronic survey collecting curricular and programmatic information about the programs was disseminated to all members of the CAMPP in August 2023. The survey included elements related to year of initiation, number of graduates, and curricular elements. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Of the schools with known established three-year MD programs, 29 of 32 programs responded (response rate 90%). There is growth of Accelerated Medical Pathway Programs over time with almost 20% of United States Allopathic Medical Schools having or developing an accelerated program. There have been 817 graduates from these programs from 2013-2023. Most schools include an opportunity for a 'directed pathway' experience for students. A directed pathway is where a student completes the MD degree in three-years and then has a direct placement into an affiliated residency program, provided they meet the goals and objectives of the curriculum. Most of the schools report a mission to reduce medical student debt and build a workforce for a specialty, for a population of patients, or geographical distribution. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Accelerated three-year medical pathway programs have grown significantly over the last decade, consistent with an overall effort to redesign medical curricula, reduce debt and contribute to the workforce.

In the last decade, there has been tremendous growth in the number of accelerated three-year medical pathway programs. The needs of accelerated pathway students are different from traditional students, and a robust mentoring program should be developed to address specific issues and guarantee student success. We describe a unique approach to the development of a mentoring program for accelerated three-year MD students at New York University Grossman School of Medicine.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Accelerated 3-year programs (A3YPs) at medical schools were developed to address student debt and mitigate workforce shortage issues. This study investigated whether medical school length (3 vs 4 years) was associated with early residency performance. The primary research question was as follows: Are the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Milestones (MS) attained by A3YP graduates comparable to graduates of traditional 4-year programs (T4YPs) at 6 and 12 months into internship? METHOD/METHODS:The MS data from students entering U.S. medical schools in 2021 and 2022 from the 6 largest specialties were used: emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, general surgery, psychiatry, and pediatrics. Three-year and 4-year graduates were matched for analysis (2,899 matched learners: 182 in A3YPs and 2,717 in T4YPs). The study used a noninferiority study design to examine data trends between the study cohort (A3YP) and control cohort (T4YP). To account for medical school and residency program effects, the authors used cross-classified random-effects regression to account for clustering and estimate group differences. RESULTS:The mean Harmonized MS ratings for the midyear and end-year reporting periods showed no significant differences between the A3YP and T4YP groups (mean [SE] cross-classified coefficient = 0.01 [0.02], P = .77). Mean MS ratings across internal medicine MS for the midyear and end-year reporting periods showed no significant differences between the A3YP and T4YP groups (mean [SE] cross-classified coefficient = -0.03 [0.03], P = .31). Similarly, for family medicine, there were no statistically significant differences between the A3YP and T4YP groups (mean [SE] cross-classified coefficient = 0.01 [0.02], P = .96). CONCLUSIONS:For the specialties studied, there were no significant differences in MS performance between 3-year and 4-year graduates at 6 and 12 months into internship. These results support comparable efficacy of A3YPs in preparing medical students for residency.

Over the last decade there has been tremendous growth in the development of accelerated MD pathways that allow medical students to graduate in three years. Developing an accelerated pathway program requires commitment from students and faculty with intensive re-thinking and altering of the curriculum to ensure adequate content to achieve competency in an accelerated timeline. A re-visioning of assessment and advising must follow and the application of AI and new technologies can be added to support teaching and learning. We describe the curricular revision to an accelerated pathway at NYU Grossman School of Medicine highlighting our thought process, conceptual framework, assessment methods and outcomes over the last ten years.

Building on the initial accelerated pathway programs in the 1970s to increase workforce, nearly 30 schools have launched accelerated 3-year pathways (A3YP) during the past decade. The authors based on their educational roles, experiences, and scholarship with A3YP provide this perspective of the argument for A3YP and potential disadvantages for each group-students, schools, residencies, departments, and community. When schools consider innovations, they might consider A3YPs for multiple reasons; this perspective helps provide justification for the program and broadly considers return on investment (ROI). The ROI for students includes decreased debt, reduced costs and stress associated with the fourth-year residency applications, and a directed pathway with facilitated transition into a residency program with accompanying professional identity development. Disadvantages for students include early specialty commitment, risk of deceleration, and condensed curriculum. The ROI for schools includes recruiting and retaining students, who will then transition more easily into residency and stimulating innovation. Residency programs gain residents with known skills, who have been a part of the department for 3 years. In addition, fewer residency slots for interviewing leads to saving recruitment administrative costs and time. Finally, many programs are intended to increase the workforce, since students who come to the region for medical school and transition directly into residency are likely to stay in the region. Disadvantages include increased curricular complexity for the medical school, increased administrative support, and advising resources. Finally, several of the accelerated programs attract matriculants from diverse backgrounds contributing to the diversity of the medical school, residency program, and community workforce.