A Review of Literature on Medical Students and Scholarly Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of medical student research programs is to develop interest in and competencies related to scholarly research within future physicians. Although schools invest in these programs, there is currently no consensus regarding what benefits they confer. The goal of this review is to characterize students' perceptions of research programs during medical school as well as the outcomes attributed to these programs to provide recommendations for their optimization. METHOD: In June 2013, the authors reviewed the literature (1950-June 2013) and identified 20 reports that provided original data delineating undergraduate medical students' primarily self-reported experiences with, outcomes related to, and attitudes toward research. RESULTS: Students generally perceive their medical school research experiences to be positive in terms of stimulating research interest and developing scholarly research abilities. The majority of students author at least one article, and first-author publications occur more frequently as formal research experiences lengthen. Elective experiences do not differ from mandatory experiences in terms of student satisfaction or productivity. Several studies uncovered negative student perceptions regarding their research experience, including too little acknowledgment, time, and faculty interaction. Published studies were deficient in characterizing effects on future research engagement in participants. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that formal medical student research programs can be optimized by improving the recognition of student effort, promoting student-mentor interaction, and allowing students the option to increase the duration of the research experience. Future studies are needed to determine whether these programs affect research participation and productivity later in participants' careers.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".