Incorporating Simulation Technology in a Canadian Internal Medicine Specialty Examination: A Descriptive Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-stakes assessment of clinical performance through the use of standardized patients (SPs) is limited by the SP's lack of real physical abnormalities. The authors report on the development and implementation of physical examination stations that combine simulation technology in the form of digitized cardiac auscultation videos with an SP assessment for the 2003 Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada's Comprehensive Objective Examination in Internal Medicine. The authors assessed candidates on both the traditional stations and the stations that combined the traditional SP examination with the digitized cardiac auscultation video. For the combined stations, candidates first completed a physical examination of the SP, watched and listened to a computer simulation, and then described their auscultatory findings. The candidates' mean scores for both types of stations were similar, as were the mean discrimination indices for both types of stations, suggesting that the combined stations were of a testing standard similar to the traditional stations. Combining an SP with simulation technology may be one approach to the assessment of clinical competence in high-stakes testing situations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".