Back

Supporting Underrepresented Undergraduate Entry into Aging and Neurosciences Research and Clinical Careers: Student-rated Mentor Behaviors, Relationship Quality and Research Training Satisfaction

Thompson, S.; Ong, L.; Marquez, B.; Molina, A. J. A.; Trinidad, D. R.; Edland, S. D.

2026-04-17 medical education
10.64898/2026.04.15.26350982 medRxiv
Show abstract

Improving diversity in U.S. Alzheimers disease (AD) research is a pressing need. By 2050, Hispanic and Latino Americans will comprise 30% of the population. Hispanics are 1.5 times more likely and Blacks are twice as likely to develop AD compared to Whites, yet both remain vastly underrepresented in clinical trials research. Aging and AD research mentorship of underrepresented STEM undergraduates is designed to promote entry into related professions by students committed to decreasing disparities in AD research participation and clinical care. The NIA-funded MADURA program recruited 93 students from backgrounds historically underrepresented in STEM majors and/or from NIH-defined disadvantaged backgrounds. Trainees were placed in aging/AD research labs and received weekly training and mentorship from faculty research PIs and other types of supervisors (postdoctoral researchers, graduate students, research assistant staff...) Our study examined student ratings of the program and mentor behaviors, using a program-specific survey and the Mentoring Competency Assessment-21 (MCA-21). Trainees were highly satisfied with both mentoring relationships and the overall program. Student rated MCA-21 competency areas were quite high for both P.I.s and other types of research mentors. However, there were striking differences in associations between competencies and relationship and program satisfaction, by mentor type. For PI mentors, no MCA-21 competencies were associated with relationship satisfaction, but five of six competencies were associated with relationship satisfaction for other mentor types. Similarly, no PI mentor competencies were significantly correlated with overall placement satisfaction, but all six competencies were correlated with overall placement satisfaction for other mentor types. The authors discuss the likelihood of differing student expectations of faculty PI versus other types of research mentors, recommendations for assessing role-specific student expectations (including functions primarily possible only for senior faculty PIs), and utilizing nearer-peer plus PI faculty mentors to comprehensively address the gamut of mentee needs.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.2%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 10%
18.2%
3
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.3%
4
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.1%
5
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.0%
6
The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
50% of probability mass above
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 33%
3.7%
8
Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.4%
9
Alzheimer's & Dementia
143 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.0%
10
Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring
38 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.0%
11
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.0%
12
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.0%
13
GeroScience
97 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.8%
14
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
43 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.5%
15
Journal of Cellular Physiology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
16
Aging
69 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
17
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.4%
18
Developmental Biology
134 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
19
BMC Genomics
328 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
20
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
21
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
22
FEBS Open Bio
29 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
23
Cells
232 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.5%