Radiology Is Losing Applicants Faster Than Any Other Specialty
Diagnostic radiology has 16% fewer applicants than it did at this point four years ago. Across the match, the number of applicants hasn’t moved, but they are sending far fewer applications.
By Rezumab · · Data as of September 23
On September 23, the day residency programs could first open ERAS 2027 applications, 1,894 people had applied to diagnostic radiology. On the same day four years earlier, 2,260 had.
That 16% decline is the steepest of any specialty with at least 300 applicants, more than twice the next-largest, in pathology (7%). Only radiology, pathology and psychiatry shrank at all. Of the 20 specialties, 17 grew, and the total number of residency applicants was essentially unchanged.
Rezumab analyzed every table behind the AAMC’s public ERAS dashboards: five application seasons, 23 specialties, applicants split by MD, DO and international medical graduate, and how often programs interviewed applicants who did and didn’t send them a signal. Here’s what we found.
Radiology is shrinking while the rest of the match holds steady
The decline has been steady rather than sudden. Counting full seasons instead of opening days, radiology went from 2,451 applicants in ERAS 2023 to 2,182 in ERAS 2026. It fell in every applicant group: MDs 13%, DOs 14% and international graduates 4%.
On the same-day measure, the decline since ERAS 2023 is −16% for MDs, −18% for DOs and −15% for international graduates. No single pipeline is driving it.
| Season | All | MD | DO | Intl. grads | Applications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ERAS 2027so far, vs. same day of 2026 | ▼−4.7% | ▼−1.7% | ▼−2.5% | ▼−14.2% | ▼−18.1% |
| ERAS 2026vs. 2025 | ▲+2.6% | ▲+1.4% | ▼−2.2% | ▲+10.0% | ▼−9.3% |
| ERAS 2025vs. 2024 | ▼−6.5% | ▼−7.3% | ▼−11.2% | ▲+0.2% | ▼−15.8% |
| ERAS 2024vs. 2023 | ▼−8.4% | ▼−9.3% | ▼−3.4% | ▼−9.7% | ▼−10.4% |
The specialty’s 191 programs are still there, so each one is seeing less demand. The median radiology program received 461 applications in ERAS 2026, down from 672 in 2023. Opening-day applications to the specialty are down 44%.
The data doesn’t say why. It does show one field moving the other way. Interventional radiology, a separate residency, has 43% more applicants than on the same day in 2023, and 24% of diagnostic radiology applicants also apply there.
A smaller pool hasn’t made radiology interviews easier to get, at least not yet. For applicants who sent a gold signal, the median program’s interview rate slipped from 57% in ERAS 2025 to 55% in 2026. For those who didn’t signal, it fell from 6% to 3%. See the full radiology numbers.
Everyone is sending fewer applications
The median applicant sent 78 applications in ERAS 2023. This year’s has sent 54 so far. The decline holds for every group. Over four full seasons, the MD median went from 58 to 41; DOs from 76 to 55; international graduates from 123 to 102.
Program signals are the likeliest reason. A signal is a limited way for an applicant to tell a program it is a top choice, and the steepest cuts came where students get the most of them. In ERAS 2025, internal medicine, neurology, physical medicine & rehabilitation, psychiatry and general surgery all added signals.
The pool itself is steady. This year’s opening day drew 45,571 residency applicants, about the same as the 45,592 on the same day of ERAS 2023. Opening-day applications fell 26%. The one group that shrank this year is international graduates, down 8% from the same day last year.
| Season | All | MD | DO | Intl. grads | Applications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ERAS 2027so far, vs. same day of 2026 | ▼−2.4% | ▲+1.0% | ▲+1.3% | ▼−8.0% | ▼−13.9% |
| ERAS 2026vs. 2025 | ▼−1.2% | ▼−2.8% | ▼−10.4% | ▲+5.6% | ▼−8.2% |
| ERAS 2025vs. 2024 | ▲+1.0% | ▼−3.1% | ▲+1.7% | ▲+6.2% | ▼−5.8% |
| ERAS 2024vs. 2023 | ▲+2.7% | ▼−0.7% | ▲+6.6% | ▲+5.5% | ▼−1.1% |
Where signals are plentiful, programs interview almost only those who send one
Show as table
| Did not signal | Signaled | |
|---|---|---|
| Dermatology | 0% | 53% |
| Orthopaedic Surgery | 0% | 22% |
| Anesthesiology | 0.7% | 55% |
| Plastic Surgery (Integrated) | 0.8% | 32% |
| Otolaryngology | 1% | 34% |
| Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation | 1% | 34% |
| Urology | 2% | 39% |
| Neurological Surgery | 2% | 29% |
| Transitional Year | 3% | 29% |
| Internal Medicine | 3% | 41% |
| Diagnostic Radiology | 3% | 55% |
| General Surgery | 5% | 26% |
| Psychiatry | 6% | 44% |
| Neurology | 8% | 38% |
| Pathology | 9% | 38% |
| Family Medicine | 19% | 42% |
| Interventional Radiology (Integrated) | 20% | 50% |
| Thoracic Surgery (Integrated) | 22% | 30% |
| Pediatrics | 23% | 58% |
| Radiation Oncology | 29% | 43% |
| Child Neurology | 31% | 43% |
In dermatology, 82% of programs interviewed no one who hadn’t signaled them. In orthopaedic surgery the figure was 53%, and in otolaryngology 45%. At the median program in each of those fields, the interview rate for applicants without a signal rounds to zero.
More signals don’t make each one worth more. An orthopaedics signal, one of 30, led to an interview 22% of the time at the median program. A pediatrics signal, one of five, did 58% of the time. Where signals are plentiful, sending one gets an applicant considered. Where they are scarce, a signal still stands out.
The same signal is worth far less to some applicants than others
Show as table
| MD | DO | Intl. graduates | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pediatrics | 86% | 83% | 24% |
| Child Neurology | 79% | – | 13% |
| Family Medicine | 78% | 75% | 12% |
| Diagnostic Radiology | 71% | 50% | 18% |
| Interventional Radiology (Integrated) | 70% | 50% | 0% |
| Radiation Oncology | 67% | – | 0% |
| Anesthesiology | 67% | 59% | 15% |
| Neurology | 64% | 50% | 13% |
| Internal Medicine | 62% | 60% | 24% |
| Pathology | 62% | 54% | 20% |
| Dermatology | 61% | 33% | 0% |
| Psychiatry | 58% | 46% | 14% |
| Urology | 46% | 22% | 7% |
| Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation | 43% | 34% | 4% |
| Plastic Surgery (Integrated) | 40% | – | 0% |
| Transitional Year | 39% | 28% | 2% |
| Neurological Surgery | 38% | – | 3% |
| Otolaryngology | 37% | 0% | 0% |
| General Surgery | 35% | 21% | 5% |
| Orthopaedic Surgery | 26% | 5% | 0% |
For DOs, the specialty matters most. In internal medicine a DO’s signal led to an interview at 60% of the median program, nearly the MD rate of 62%. In pediatrics it was 83% against 86%. In orthopaedic surgery it was 5% against 26%.
For international graduates, a signal narrows the gap but rarely closes it. In family medicine, an MD who didn’t signal a program was interviewed 49% of the time; an international graduate who did, 12%. Internal medicine is the exception. There, an international graduate’s gold signal (24%) beat an MD’s unsignaled application (11%).
These figures describe outcomes by group, not the effect of belonging to one. The groups differ in exam timing, visa needs and U.S. clinical experience, and none of that is controlled here.
Every specialty, in detail
Five seasons of applicants and applications by MD, DO and international graduate, signal use, interview rates and ERAS 2027 so far.
Applicants on the day programs opened applications, ERAS 2027 vs. the same day of ERAS 2023 and ERAS 2026. A dash means fewer than 50 applicants in the earlier year.