MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030335284 · doi:10.1503/cjs.018610

Principles and Practice of Clinical Research course for surgeons: an evaluation of knowledge transfer and perceptions

2012· article· en· W2030335284 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sheila Sprague, Polina Pozdniakova, Elizabeth Kaempffer, Michel Saccone, Emil H. Schemitsch, Mohit Bhandari

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Surgery · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTest (biology)Evidence-based medicineMedical educationFamily medicineAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Knowledge and training in evidence-based medicine (EBM) and clinical research is under-represented in most surgical training programs in North America. To address a lack of resources for surgeons, trainees and related specialties, we developed a Principles and Practice of Clinical Research (PPCR) course. The current study evaluated transfer of knowledge and perceptions about the course. METHODS: The course was an intensive 2.5-day workshop consisting of interactive lectures and small group breakout sessions. Pre- and postcourse tests were completed by participants. The Fresno test, questions from the Centre of Applied Medical Statistics (CAMS) test and questions developed by the course chairs were used to determine if participants' knowledge of EBM, clinical research methodology and statistics improved. We also elicited participant perceptions of the course. RESULTS: Overall participant knowledge about EBM and clinical research methods improved significantly from the pre- to the postcourse test (mean improvement inscore 13.5%, relative increase 35.3%, p < 0.001). Specifically, improvements were demonstrated on the Fresno test (mean improvement 13.5%, relative increase 36.1%, p< 0.001) and the CAMS test (mean improvement 11.4%, relative increase 20.1%, p = 0.001). Participants showed the greatest improvement in general knowledge about clinical research (mean improvement 15.4%, relative increase 46.5%, p < 0.001). The PPCR course was well received; 30 (81.1%) participants who completed the course evaluation gave it a positive rating. CONCLUSION: Participants in a short course focusing on EBM and clinical research methodology had significant improvements in scores on tests of knowledge gained. Widespread implementation of similar courses may bridge knowledge gaps for surgeons, surgical trainees and health professionals. Whether shorter knowledge gain sare retained in the longer term remains unknown.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.791
GPT teacher head0.629
Teacher spread0.162 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of SurgerySame topicHealth and Medical Research ImpactsFrench-language works237,207