A Tale of Two Approaches: Results from Integrating Medical Histology and Pathology
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In response to recommendations for curricular reform, many medical and allied health professional programs have reorganized discipline‐based courses and reduced educational contact hours. As with other core foundational medical science faculty, histology educators are navigating this reduced time for didactic lecture and lab‐based teaching. The resulting challenges are driving the development and implementation of innovative approaches to provide effective histology teaching. One approach is to integrate histology with other disciplines to both optimize limited teaching hours and increase the clinical and functional relevance of medical microanatomy. In this presentation, we describe educational studies of two different approaches to integrating histology with pathology – one in a fully integrated two year basic/clinical sciences curriculum, and one in a spiral curriculum, in which the first year focuses on basic sciences and the second year focuses on clinical sciences. The first presenter (Dr. Pinder) will share experiences from collaborations between foundational scientists and clinicians in the integration of histology and pathology. Part of a medical curriculum renewal project and now in its third iteration, this study occurs in a combined basic and clinical sciences curriculum in which histology and pathology are integrated with increasing complexity throughout years one and two. Methods include the development of integrated learning laboratories in which students first explore the normal histology of an organ and then compare and contrast it to changes in cellular morphologies and/or tissue architecture occurring in prototypical pathologies. Results include faculty experiences, student outcomes on formative integrated examinations, and educational research data from student learning surveys. The second presenter will share results from an action research study developed to identify disciplinary differences in how histology (normal and abnormal) is approached, understood, described, and taught. The faculty members, a histologist (Dr. Eastwood) and pathologist (Dr. Selinfreund), then apply this knowledge to create “transitional” learning activities to help students understand the relationship between normal and abnormal histology and navigate different disciplinary ways of knowing characteristics of histology and pathology. Research methods include qualitative analysis of faculty written reflections, debrief sessions, and collaborative teaching sessions. Results include identification of disciplinary disconnects, such as what “symmetry” means, histology knowledge most critical to histopathology, such as recognizing hematopoietic cells, and effective “transitional” activities, such as pathology integrations during histology sessions and focused histology reviews during pathology sessions. The experiences and outcomes discussed will demonstrate efficacious approaches for integrating foundational sciences and clinical disciplines and will be useful for medical science educators who are exploring or implementing interdisciplinary undergraduate medical education in different curricular settings. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,023 | 0,061 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».