Medical Students’ Experiences with Addicted Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Project CREATE was an initiative to strengthen undergraduate medical education in addictions. As part of a needs assessment, forty-six medical students at Ontario's five medical schools completed a bi-weekly, interactive web-based survey about addiction-related learning events. In all, 704 unique events were recorded, for an average of 16.7 entries per student. The most commonly discussed topic was alcohol withdrawal and the complications of alcohol use. The most common learning venues were lectures and clinical encounters in the emergency department or hospital. The proportion of advice-related topics (e.g., advice to drinkers and smokers) to advice plus non-advice related topics (e.g., medical complications) was greater for outpatient and community settings than for acute care and didactic settings (ratio 1.29, chi sq 15.85, p < 0.01). Students reacted strongly to the psychosocial impact of addictions on patients, yet they viewed addiction as a personal choice, not an illness. CONCLUSION: Medical students are not being trained to diagnose addiction or provide advice and counseling. Medical schools need to provide students with positive clinical experiences supervised by physicians experienced in addictions.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".