Bryan Carmody

YouTube video by Sheriff of Sodium Making the Rank Order List: Buyers & Sellers Edition

Another video from @jbcarmody.bsky.social with pure gold advice, this time on how to assemble your rank list www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMD1...
Sell: work hours, Buy: good attitude colleagues 💯

Post-MCAT Questionnaire (PMQ) The Post-MCAT Questionnaire (PMQ) Summary Report displays national data from the PMQ.

Full report here:

www.aamc.org/data-reports...

Despite taking the MCAT, 1.6% of examinees asserted “I have not definitely decided that I want to study medicine”

52% said that online flashcard generators were “very useful” in preparation - up from 41% in 2020

(Meanwhile, just 43% found Khan Academy “very useful” - down from 53% in 2021.)

70% (!) of MCAT examinees have (or anticipate having) zero dollars of educational debt from their undergraduate/premedical education

49% of MCAT test-takers are still in college… but 12% graduated from college 5 or more years ago

Some interesting figures from the AAMC’s Post-MCAT Questionnaire:

88% of MCAT test-takers say they are “very likely” to apply to MD-granting medical schools - but only 32% say the same for DO-granting schools

Graphic demonstrating the percentage of positions filled by fellowship specialty in the 2025 NRMP Medicine and Pediatric Specialties Match. Cardiology, Hematology-Oncology, Gastroenterology, and Rheumatology filled 99% or more of their available positions, while Geriatric Medicine, Child Abuse Pediatrics, and Pediatric Nephrology filled 41% or less.

Graphic demonstrating the applicant match rate for specialty fellowships in the 2025 NRMP Medicine and Pediatric Specialties Match. Match rates for Gastroenterology, Cardiology, and Hematology-Oncology were all <70%, while Pediatric Endocrinology, Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, Pediatric Hematology-Oncology, Pediatric Rheumatology, and Child Abuse Pediatrics were all >98%.

It’s Fellowship Match Day!

I hope you’re right (and honestly, few have as much insight on this topic as you).

I’m just a systems guy - so when I see a system where 1.5% of the GDP is potentially up for grabs, there exists a HUGE incentive for companies to hack through all the barriers and make it work.

Do the politicians say no?

I don’t think so.

And even if they do - right now - they won’t for long.

The prize is too great.

Eventually the regulatory barriers will fall.

Investors see it now.

“My Bot Doctors will take care of your Medicare/Medicaid patients - and save taxpayers hundreds of millions. They’ll also serve the underserved in places where human doctors won’t.

But we need NPI and DEA numbers; licenses to work and laws requiring payors to recognize us; malpractice caps; etc.”

It didn’t pass… but every day, there are more and more stories on the “physician shortage,” Medicaid shortfalls, etc.

So what happens when a tech CEO approaches legislators and says, “I can fix these problems for you.”

Already, some politicians have proposed legislation recognizing chatbots as prescribers under the FDA:

www.congress.gov/bill/119th-c...

If you have another argument for why AI replacement of doctors won’t occur, go ahead and try to make it.

I’d love to believe you.

But I probably won’t - because the economic incentives are too strong, and the regulatory barriers are already getting frayed.

Spare me, also, the copes about how AI doctors would require gold-standard evidence (this is a political process, not Journal Club) or how liability/malpractice is an insurmountable obstacle rather than a ‘cost of doing business’ issue that stakeholders have a strong incentive to resolve.

Spare me the copium about how patients only want real doctors (assuming costs are equal, right?), or that there are edge cases that a Super Doctor would catch (while ignoring that low functioning doctors are already well surpassed by LLMs), or that AI makes mistakes (as if human doctors don’t).

And when I say “can be automated” - I don’t mean they could possibly, potentially be automated by some superadvanced hypothetical AI bot of the future.

I mean they could be automated RIGHT NOW.

The only thing keeping that from occurring are the legal and regulatory barriers.

And sure - there are *some* physician tasks that a bot can’t do well.

But *most* doctor decisions can be automated by AI (+/- a scribe, nurse, surgical tech, EMT, etc.).

Right now, 8.6% of healthcare spending goes to doctors.

In other words, this is a ~$430 BILLION market.

Whoever successfully disrupts it by making a doctor bot that earns physician professional fees won’t just be rich - they may become one of the richest people who has ever lived.

Or maybe - just maybe - the smart people who run these companies will realize that a rational doctor/hospital will only pay a fraction of the marginal value the ‘solution’ creates for them. But by cutting out the middle man, they could get 100% of a much bigger prize:

Physician’s professional fees.

Maybe OpenEvidence (and Epic’s AI, etc.) will all just stay in their lane and only sell “solutions” to help doctors work smarter and faster.

Maybe you’ll sit at the helm of an AI-driven clinical enterprise with you positioned as the indispensible middle man, just rolling in revenue!

Sure, maybe the valuation is just wrong.

Maybe OpenEvidence will remain free to you and just keep selling ads.

Or maybe it’ll become a moderately-priced subscription service like UpToDate.

But neither of those business models will generate the ROI that high-powered investors want.

Screenshot of OpenEvidence investment prospectus, noting revenue of $50,000,000 with valuation of $6,100,000,000.

OpenEvidence has revenue of $50 million.

But investors value it at $6.1 BILLION.

So… a couple of questions for the “AI won’t replace doctors!” crowd:

What do you think OE’s long-term monetization pathway looks like?

And what do investors expect to happen that could justify this valuation?

YouTube video by Sheriff of Sodium A Brief Update on USMLE Score Creep

More here:

A Brief Update on USMLE Score Creep
youtu.be/1gKKAZ5aO8E

Graphic showing the mean and minimum passing score for USMLE Step 2 CK from 1994 to 2025. In 1994, the mean was around 200 and the passing standard was 167.

Meanwhile, the mean USMLE Step 2 score continues to rise by around 1 point/year.

For the 2024-2025 academic year, it hit 250.

(But don’t worry - the minimum passing score was increased in July from 214 to 218.)

Graphic demonstrating the distribution of USMLE Step 2 CK scores in four eras: 2013-2016, 2016-2019, 2019-2022, and 2022-2025. Each year, the distribution shifts slightly rightward and becomes slightly more compressed.

Another year, another increase in USMLE Step 2 CK performance.

Notice how the distribution shifts rightward every year.

The $100,000 H-1B Visa: Winners & Losers Edition Last week, President Trump signed a proclamation requiring a $100,000 fee for all new H-1B visas. (For anyone unaware, the H-1B program allows American companies to employ skilled foreign workers w…

Last week, the president issued a proclamation imposing a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa applications.

It’s generated lots of discussion - much of which isn’t grounded in facts or logic.

So who really wins - and who loses - with the six-figure H-1B?

thesheriffofsodium.com/2025/09/24/t...

The Applicant’s Guide to Strategic Preference Signaling Whenever I discuss preference signaling on social media, one of the first replies is always “Wait – what’s that?” In the olden days, when an applicant was interested in a particular residency…

On September 24, ERAS will open to programs. Which means applicants have only 2 weeks left to decide which programs to signal.

And if you want to know how to allocate your signals in the most effective manner possible, I’ve got something for you:

thesheriffofsodium.com/2025/09/10/t...

Number of preference signals allowed, by specialty, in the 2025-2026 residency application cycle. Some specialties like orthopaedic surgery and urology allow 30 signals; others like pediatrics and emergency medicine only allow 5. Some specialties like dermatology, anesthesiology, radiology, and internal medicine have both gold and silver signals.

Preference signaling in the 2026 Match

Thank you for listening!