A Research Laboratory Methods Course for Medical Subspecialty Residents
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective: The teaching of basic sciences to medical residents remains an ongoing need. Recent advances in science such as the Human Genome Project reinforce the importance and clinical relevance of the basic sciences. Beyond the teaching of basic sciences, residents need to have some understanding of the research laboratory methods commonly used and their limitations. Residents in medical subspecialties hail from various backgrounds, and the majority have had no exposure to a research laboratory. The Research Laboratory Methods Course was designed to allow residents a hands-on opportunity to work in four basic science laboratories. The goal is to provide a unique experience in the laboratory without a long-term commitment to a research project. Residents will acquire hands-on knowledge of commonly used techniques and an understanding of the research being carried out in the laboratory. Issues related to limitations of the techniques, relevant controls, and interpretation of results and safety concerns will be discussed. Upon completion, residents will also be familiar with biotechnical manuals and databases for future reference. Description: A catalog of participating laboratories is compiled detailing the specific experimental objectives for each day of the weekly blocks. Each principal investigator is asked to commit to accepting a resident for one week, to be closely involved in the evaluation process, and to ensure that a technician is assigned to work with the resident. Principal investigators are members of the division; some are PhD scientists and some are clinician scientists. The subspecialty resident will attend the course, designed to include one week in each of the four different laboratories. The resident will be excused from normal daytime duties with the exception of the longitudinal clinic. An information package detailing objectives of the course, methods of evaluation, and where to report is provided. An information package is also provided to the principal investigator outlining his or her responsibilities and methods of evaluation. Discussion: This course has been successfully completed by four endocrinology training residents and will be provided to all our new training residents. In all but one of the weekly blocks, proposed experiments were successfully completed within the allotted times. The residents reported they did the majority of the work and felt well supervised, with no safety concerns. They appreciated the opportunity to meet staff in the division who are often considered inaccessible. Review of the evaluations did not identify any problems. The overall satisfaction level was very high, and the principal investigators involved were willing to continue participating in the future. The experience of attending four laboratories provided residents with a unique introduction to different techniques used in laboratory research. The residents reported that they enjoyed the structured curriculum and the opportunity to sample a number of techniques in different laboratories. The actual experimental protocols were easy to create and were based on techniques commonly used in molecular biology. This course could easily be implemented for subspecialty residents using the laboratories of researchers within the department.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».