Usage Information
Citation Information: JCI Insight. 2024;9(15):e182288. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.182288.
Abstract
The average time to degree for completing a life sciences PhD in the United States is longer for single-degree than dual-degree trainees, supporting a perception that the PhD training of MD-PhDs is less rigorous or fulsome. To determine whether degree format influences the duration and impact of graduate training, we analyzed data for the 2011–2016 graduates of 3 Harvard Medical School PhD programs. Linear mixed effects models were used to determine the association between degree type (MD-PhD vs. PhD) and research outcomes, including time to degree, time to thesis defense, and publications submitted during the PhD. Although pursuing an MD-PhD was associated with a 1.5-year shorter time to PhD degree, basing this calculation on the official PhD period does not account for completion of early PhD requirements, including research rotations and qualifying coursework, during the first 2 years of medical school. There was no association between degree format and total number of first-author or overall publications, though pursuing a dual degree was associated with increased impact metrics of published papers. The results highlight that despite the seemingly shorter PhD durations of MD-PhD graduates based on graduate program enrollment period, research training is on par with their single-degree peers, rendering MD-PhD graduates well equipped to become successful scientific investigators.
Authors
Rory Vu Mather, Temperance R. Rowell, Steve Obuchowski, Loren D. Walensky
Usage data is cumulative from December 2024 through December 2025.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 2,212 | 313 |
| 312 | 25 | |
| Figure | 265 | 2 |
| Table | 212 | 0 |
| Supplemental data | 179 | 0 |
| Citation downloads | 132 | 0 |
| Totals | 3,312 | 340 |
| Total Views | 3,652 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
