Bibliographic record
Abstract
Embryology. Board Review Series 4th edn. By Dudek, R. W. and Fix, J. D.. Pp . 304+ xiii . Illustrated. Indexed. Soft Cover . 2008 . US$36.95 . ISBN 978-0-7817-7116-0 . Philadelphia : Wolters Kluwer; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins . The attainment of a fourth edition of a textbook is indicative of its success in a fiercely competitive field. The publication of its third edition a mere 3 years ago signifies both the rapid advances occurring in the field of embryology and the increasing relevance of this once esoteric discipline in the clinical practice of medicine and its allied fields. The apparent success of this relatively new entry into the field of embryology texts, first published in 1994, is the specific targeted audience for whom it is written, expressed in its title: ‘Board Review Series’. The 27 chapters follow a format of an initial overview, followed by brief descriptions of systems and organ development, with references to figures, none in colour. A significant emphasis is placed on clinical considerations and maldevelopments. Each chapter has a section on ‘Study Questions’, terminated by ‘Answers and Explanations’. The study questions are all of the multiple choice variety that students of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) are likely to face, and that do not necessitate deep comprehension of the subject. Of note is the emphasis on perinatal medicine and fetal pathology in the questions and answers sections. The book provides access to an online website of the publishers, available from a hidden ‘scratch off’ panel inside the front cover. To access the online content, one can enter the publisher's website (lww.com) and follow the link to the Point Portal. Upon registration with the password, an identifying code is placed onto the computer, locking your password to that machine ensuring only one access portal and limiting it to one user. Students and instructors have access to a ‘My Book’ page listing all of the owner's registered books. For instructors, they must first verify their credentials and adopt the corresponding book into their course to obtain access to the online course content. Once access is granted, then a course can be developed with the addition of a syllabus, quizzes and assignments. A faculty image bank is also indicated; however, the image preview, due to potential technical issues, showed no figures using either the Fire Fox web browser or Internet Explorer. At least one minor link to another webpage was also found broken, suggesting the publishers need to test their page links further before releasing these to the public. The student access provides two main options: (1) the full text in chapter form and (2) a question bank with both review questions and practice tests. The bank has a limited number of questions per chapter, for the Dudeck's Embryology text, which we feel would be more useful with a larger number of questions. While going through the review questions, what was appreciated was the easy access to complete answers revealed with a touch of a button. The website is easy to navigate but does not contain much bonus material for the student. Of note, we were amused that the instructor's section had access to a career page; however, the link led to an error message. In conclusion, this textbook is devised for the specific purpose of passing medical board examinations, without the insights that classical embryology texts provide.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.167 | 0.222 |
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".