Back to 2025 Abstracts
New England Program Signaling in the General Surgery Residency Match: A Descriptive Analysis
Samantha Ahle
*1, Kenneth Lynch
1, Ashlie Haas-Rodriguez
1, Thomas Miner
1, Albany Medical Center Program
2, Mass General Brigham Program
3, Boston University Medical Center Program
4, Kari M. Rosenkranz
5, Lahey Clinic Program
6, Jaswin Sawhney
7, Mass General Brigham Mass General Program
8, Stamford Hospital Program
9, University of Connecticut Program
10, Jennifer LaFemina
11, University of Vermont Medical Center Program
121Surgery, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI; 2Surgery, Albany Medical Center, Albany, NY; 3Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; 4Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA; 5Darmouth- Hitchcock, Lebanon, NH; 6Lahey Clinic, Burlington, MA; 7Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME; 8Mass General, Boston, MA; 9Stamford Hospital, Stamford, CT; 10University of Connecticut Program, Hartford, CT; 11UMass Chan School of Medicine, Boston, MA; 12University of Vermont Medical Center, Burlington, VT
Background: Program signaling has emerged in the general surgery residency application, aiming to align applicant and program preferences in an effort to streamline interview selection and improve match outcomes. However, its impact on general surgery residency application review, interview selection and match outcomes remains underexplored. This study examines the initial experience of how signaling influences application review, interview allocation, and match results in a cohort of New England general surgery residency programs.
Study Design: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among seven academic residency programs in March-April 2025. Data included program size, categorical applications received, signals by applicant type (US MD, US DO, IMG), applications reviewed, interviews conducted, cancellations, and match outcomes. Descriptive analysis assessed signaling’s role in the match process. Data collection from additional programs is ongoing and the final dataset is anticipated to be larger.
Results: Across 41 categorical positions, programs received 7,668 applications (mean: 1,095/program), with 1,946 signals (mean: 278/program; 64.8% US MD, 7.2% DO, 28.5% IMG). Of 4,430 applications reviewed (mean: 633/program), 32.8% signaled. Programs conducted 663 interviews (mean: 95/program), with 80.4% from signaled applicants. Cancellations totaled 18 (mean: 2.6/program), with 6/7 programs reporting fewer than prior years. Signaling minimally affected rank lists (1/7 programs), but 38/41 matched interns (92.7%) had signaled. Programs prioritized signaled applicants for review and interviews.
Conclusion: Signaling significantly shapes the residency application process by helping to screen applicants for review and interviews, reducing cancellations, and achieving a 92.7% match rate of signaled interns. While rank lists remain largely unaffected, signaling can enhance match efficiency by enabling programs to concentrate their time and resources on applicants who have expressed genuine interest. This may facilitate more thorough holistic reviews that mutually benefit the applicants who have genuine interest in a program, while reducing the time and cost burden on programs.
Back to 2025 Abstracts
