MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2406371278 · doi:10.15537/1658-3175.2398

The campaign to revitalize academic medicine kicks off. We need a deep and broad international debate to begin

2004· editorial· en· W2406371278 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter Tugwell

Notice bibliographique

RevueSaudi Medical Journal · 2004
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAcademic medicineHealth careCertificationMedical educationAlternative medicinePublic relationsPolitical scienceService (business)MedicineLawBusiness

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

a:2:{s:4:"lang";s:2:"en";s:7:"content";s:4679:" The British Medical Journal (BMJ) and a range of partners, including other journals published by the BMJ Publishing Group, Lancet, Canadian Medical Association Journal, Dutch Journal of Medicine, Medical Journal of Australia, Croatian Medical Journal, the Academy of Medical Sciences, and many others have initiated a project to bring people together to debate whether the existing structure of academic medicine is still fundamentally sound and, if not, to propose alternatives to it.1 I have taken on the challenge of coordinating this project, and I extend an invitation to readers all over the world to join me in this exciting enterprise. To achieve the project9s broad goals (Table 1) we begin from the position that "more of the same" is not enough. We need to be free to propose radical changes to the fundamental nature of academic medicine (is the balance between bench and applied research all wrong?); its name (should it become "academic healthcare" or should we drop "academic"?); its home base (are hospitals the wrong place to train doctors?); its relation to service (why are they so often far apart?); its methods of training and certification (should medical education be lecture based and far shorter?); and its responsibilities (should it be held accountable for inequities in health care at the global level?). Our approach will be inclusive and is designed to ensure a broad input of opinions. Rather than allowing the process to be taken over by a few experts with vested interests, we will build consensus by inviting an exhaustive range of global stakeholders to contribute their views. We are especially interested in the views of the "customers"of academic medicine patients, politicians, practitioners, and the public. Anyone can contribute his or her views right now, today, as a rapid response to this article at bmj.com. In addition, our new project webpage is under development (www.bmj.com/academic medicine), and this will contain regular campaign updates, news, and collected resources. The proposed structure is as follows. The pivotal group will be an international working party whose composition will include knowledge and competency across the dimensions of global health and basic to applied healthcare research, representing the range of constituents (medical students, postgraduates, junior faculty, established academics-especially women). Supported by 4 advisory groups (Table 2) and made up of approximately 8 individuals, the working party will begin by answering four questions. Firstly, what are the roles of academic medicine? Secondly, how well is academic medicine carrying out these roles? Responses to the earlier BMJ editorial launching this initiative have already nominated a wide array of (but no clear consensus regarding) perceived failures, including failing to serve the public good, lack of a global perspective, an unnecessary dichotomy between education and research, various shortcomings in medical education, and inadequate numbers of and career paths for well-trained medical academics.2 Thirdly, why is academic medicine failing to fulfill its roles? Reasons might include inadequate leadership, a failure to translate basic discoveries into benefits for patients, inappropriate incentives to take up or maintain an academic career (especially among women), deficient mentoring for aspiring academics, lack of appreciation of the benefits of academic medicine by elected representatives, and poor integration with other health services. Many of the reasons will be economic the salaries and resources needed for research and teaching make academic medicine unattractive currently but we need to examine ethical and moral explanations as well. Finally, for each failure, what ought to be carried out regarding it? Given current economic constraints in countries with high and low income, special attention will go to strategies that call for no additional funding. We will, however, welcome strategies that call for the reallocation of current funding. At the policy level, we welcome strategies for how academic medicine can contribute to national and global health. These strategies will be combined and formulated into concrete proposals for action. We need your support and input. To nominate a member of the working party, join an advisory group, or register your experiences and views, send a rapid response to bmj.com or contact our project manager, Jocalyn Clark, at jclark{at}bmj.com. References 1.Academic medicine: resuscitation in progress. CMAJ 2004; 170: 309. 2.Clark J, Smith R. BMJ publishing group to launch an international campaign to promote academic medicine. BMJ 2003; 327: 1001-1002. ";}

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)0,065
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,089
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: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,065
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,345

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0650,089
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,002
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0120,029
Communication savante0,0360,039
Science ouverte0,0050,025
Intégrité de la recherche0,0510,076
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0390,021

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 Opus0,046
Tête enseignante GPT0,438
Écart entre enseignants0,392 · 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
GenreÉditorial

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

En bref

Citations15
Publié2004
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueSaudi Medical JournalMême sujetHealth and Medical Research ImpactsTravaux en français237 207