MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068224609 · doi:10.3163/1536-5050.102.3.008

How are medical students trained to locate biomedical information to practice evidence-based medicine? a review of the 2007–2012 literature

2014· review· en· W2068224609 on OpenAlexaff
Lauren A. Maggio, Janice Y. Kung

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Medical Library Association JMLA · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical educationMEDLINEModalitiesVariety (cybernetics)ScopusSet (abstract data type)Psychological interventionResource (disambiguation)Computer sciencePsychologyMedicineArtificial intelligenceNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This study describes how information retrieval skills are taught in evidence-based medicine (EBM) at the undergraduate medical education (UGME) level. METHODS: The authors systematically searched MEDLINE, Scopus, Educational Resource Information Center, Web of Science, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews for English-language articles published between 2007 and 2012 describing information retrieval training to support EBM. Data on learning environment, frequency of training, learner characteristics, resources and information skills taught, teaching modalities, and instructor roles were compiled and analyzed. RESULTS: Twelve studies were identified for analysis. Studies were set in the United States (9), Australia (1), the Czech Republic (1), and Iran (1). Most trainings (7) featured multiple sessions with trainings offered to preclinical students (5) and clinical students (6). A single study described a longitudinal training experience. A variety of information resources were introduced, including PubMed, DynaMed, UpToDate, and AccessMedicine. The majority of the interventions (10) were classified as interactive teaching sessions in classroom settings. Librarians played major and collaborative roles with physicians in teaching and designing training. Unfortunately, few studies provided details of information skills activities or evaluations, making them difficult to evaluate and replicate. CONCLUSIONS: This study reviewed the literature and characterized how EBM search skills are taught in UGME. Details are provided on learning environment, frequency of training, level of learners, resources and skills trained, and instructor roles. IMPLICATIONS: The results suggest a number of steps that librarians can take to improve information skills training including using a longitudinal approach, integrating consumer health resources, and developing robust assessments.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0170.017
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.120
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.394 · 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 designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations41
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Medical Library Association JMLASame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207