Medical students' oral case presentation skills: A survey of medical students, residents, and attending physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
with more senior colleagues about patient care. The development of mastery of this skill is not well understood. The present study examined medical students’ experience learning oral case presentations at our institution. Methods: We surveyed fourth-year medical students, pediatric residents, and pediatricians at our institution about case presentations. The surveys consisted mostly of Likert-scale questions. Differences between the groups’ responses were assessed using Chi-squared tests followed by the Marascuilo procedure. Results: Response rates were 67%, 57% and 50% for medical students, residents, and staff physicians, respectively. Medical students rated “observing a more senior colleague” and “informal clerkship teaching sessions” as the most useful learning methods. Medical students were significantly more likely to rate themselves as very or extremely competent with case presentations compared to both residents (p<0.05) and staff physicians (p<0.05). Eighty-three per cent (83%) of medical students felt they were very/extremely competent. In contrast, only 38% of residents and 26% of staff physicians felt the students were very/extremely competent. Students reported receiving feedback on case presentations significantly less frequently than staff physicians reported giving feedback (p<0.05). The surveys also examined the concept of relevance. Sixty-two per cent (62%) of residents and 48% of staff physicians felt that medical students present too much information in a case presentation. Sixty-eight per cent (68%) of students had been told to limit the information they presented. Conclusions: Graduating medical students’ confidence may exceed their competence as it relates to oral case presentations. There was a significant discrepancy between the frequency of feedback reported by medical students and staff physicians.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".