Commentary: A Century of Progress in Medical Education: What About the Next 10 Years?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abraham Flexner's seminal 1910 report, Medical Education in the United States and Canada, is widely credited with instigating important changes in U.S. medical education that have shaped today's system of training physicians. Although Flexner's report publicly articulated recommendations for widespread change, the stage had been set for reform for quite some time. In this commentary, the author examines the landscape of change in medical education at the turn of the 20th century, highlighting the roles of several important contributors, especially the American Medical Association's Committee on Medical Education. Now, 100 years later, academic medicine is poised for further reforms to enable medical schools and teaching hospitals to meet the needs of 21st-century patients and physicians. The author outlines the challenges that must be addressed today and argues that the immediate future—specifically, the next 10 years—must see reforms on the scale of those enacted a century ago in order to achieve a sustainable 21st-century model of medical education.
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 | 0.008 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.042 | 0.047 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
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".