MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W21252621

The Jeremiah Metzger lecture: Osler - web - rendezvous: impact of the information explosion on medical education.

2008· article· en· W21252621 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephen B. Greenberg

Notice bibliographique

RevuePubMed · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueInnovations in Medical Education
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAdmirationMedical schoolMedical educationMedicineClassicsPsychologyHistory
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Bert Dupont has been a mentor, colleague, and friend for over 35 years and I am honored to have been invited by him to give the 44th Jeremiah Metzger lecture. In reviewing Dr. Metzger's life, his contributions, and his role in this association, I was pleased to see that he spent most of his medical career here in Tucson. As the new Dean of Medical Education at Baylor College of Medicine, I have focused in the past year on assessing the continuum of medical education, UME → GME → CME and the effects of the information explosion on the practice of medicine. Because of my interest in and admiration for William Osler's achievements, I thought about how he would view our current and future educational issues. Have things in medical education really changed? Are we witnessing a true revolution or the natural evolution of issues debated by academic educators for the past 100 years? After teaching at both McGill University and the University of Pennsylvania Schools of Medicine, William Osler arrived at the new Johns Hopkins Hospital (1889) and medical school (1893) as the first Chair of Medicine and Chief of the Medicine Service (1). For sixteen years in Baltimore (1889 - 1905) and fourteen years in Oxford, England (1905 - 1919), Osler implemented and published many of his ideas on medical education (2–6). Through his published essays, he outlined a philosophy of life and delineated the critical issues facing his generation (Figure 1). He was concerned about multiple educational issues: the influence of teacher on student, the access to medical information through libraries and professional societies, and the centrality of the physician - patient relationship. Fig. 1 William Osler's central medical education issues. Osler was recognized during his lifetime as the consummate clinician - educator. He wanted to be remembered for bringing bedside teaching to the 3rd and 4th year medical students. He instituted the beginnings of a medicine residency program which has many similarities to how we structure ours to this day. He was a staunch benefactor of state and local medical societies and believed they were vital resources for the practicing physicians' continuing education (7). Unlike Abraham Flexner, who focused predominately on the undergraduate medical school curriculum, Osler was concerned equally about the continuum of medical education from undergraduate to post-graduate training and about the need for lifelong learning for the practicing physician. Osler's textbook, The Principles and Practice of Medicine, was first published in 1892 and became an instant best-seller (8). It went through multiple editions and was translated into many languages. For over 30 years, it was considered the single best source for practitioners who wanted to be “up to date.” During his career, there was a dramatic increase in published journals and pamphlets (9). Most of the published journals in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were not well reviewed or edited (10). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) would not be published until the 1940's. Even with the growth of medical journal publications, many physicians could not access the published literature unless they lived in large cities with medical societies and/or libraries (11). Throughout his writings, Osler voiced his concerns about the increase in the volume of medical literature, about the need for improved accessibility and quality, as well as, how the information would affect medical education across the continuum.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,019
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,065

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,014
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,003
Communication savante0,0060,010
Science ouverte0,0010,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0060,015
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0190,009

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,287
Écart entre enseignants0,270 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2008
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePubMed→Même sujetInnovations in Medical Education→Travaux en français237 207→