Peer Mentorship for International Medical Students in the United States
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
To the Editor: International students in U.S. medical schools face unique challenges. After enrolling in medical school, international students must strategically prepare for matching into residency programs that sponsor visas while engaging with meaningful extracurricular opportunities within the restrictions set forth by their student visas. As citizens of Nicaragua and Canada, respectively, who have encountered difficulties when finding answers to questions specific to our international status in undergraduate and postgraduate medical training, we suggest medical schools facilitate peer mentorship initiatives intended for international medical students. An important reason for this difficulty is the low number of enrolled international medical students in the United States. For example, of the 2020–2021 matriculating students to allopathic medical schools in the United States, only 131 out of 22,329 matriculants had a legal residence abroad. 1 In turn, medical schools may be relatively limited in providing nuanced, experience-based career guidance and support to their international students. Navigating the limited and different visa options for postgraduate training—in addition to identifying residency programs that even consider international applicants—can be challenging. This compounds the many challenges medical students face in general, including the uncertainty of matching to a residency program and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on each application cycle, setting up international medical students for a more complex journey in medical education than their U.S. peers. Given the few international U.S. medical graduates, and the limitations in career counseling for this population, there is a need for well-informed mentorship and guidance. Peer mentorship initiatives that connect international medical students with each other remain largely underused by medical schools. Although medical schools often offer peer mentorship programs in which more senior students provide academic advice and support to newer students, this approach is insufficient for international students who require guidance in the context of their specific situation. Instead, medical schools should proactively connect international medical students to each other across class years and, just as importantly, to their international alumni. Individuals who have navigated the many barriers present for international medical students in the United States are more likely to provide focused, experience-based support. Facilitating these relationships early in medical school may result in other benefits, including involvement with scholarship and research activities. Ultimately, international medical students in the United States have left their home countries and families to serve the U.S. people. Medical schools that admit international students should place value in using every possible tool to propel them to a successful career in medicine. Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the deans of the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University for supporting their medical training in the United States.
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 | 0,005 | 0,046 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,011 | 0,014 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,011 | 0,003 |
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 ».