Using a Lego<sup>TM</sup>-Based Communications Simulation to Introduce Medical Students to Patient-Centered Interviewing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Teaching patient-centered interviewing skills to medical students can be challenging. We have observed that 1st-year medical students, in particular, do not feel free to concentrate on the interviewing skills because they are preoccupied with complicated technical medical knowledge. The Lego simulation we use with our 1st-year students as part of a professional-skills course overcomes that difficulty. SUMMARY: The Lego activity is a role play analogous to a doctor-patient interview that uses identical sets of Legos for the "doctor" and for the "patients" and a small construction that represents a patient history. CONCLUSIONS: With a simple questionnaire, data were collected from students at different points during instruction. Results indicate that the Lego activity was very effective in helping students learn the importance of open-ended questioning. It also was rated as highly as the very dynamic interactive part of the instructional session. The effectiveness of the Lego activity may be due to the properties of analogies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it