Structured clinical case PowerPoint™ presentations for distributed learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context and setting Clinical case presentations were introduced as a core component of the paediatrics rotation. Presentations took place in a multimedia conference room on the medical school campus. Bridgit™ conferencing software allowed students at other sites to participate in the presentations in real time. The presented cases offered an opportunity to ensure the objectives of the rotation were met, allowed students in smaller centres to be involved with larger groups and provided potentially more variation in case content. Presentations were subsequently edited by faculty staff and students and posted on the university intranet (Dalmedix) for asynchronous learning. Why the idea was necessary Students are exposed to unique patients and conditions, including disorders that are seasonal. The structured clinical cases offered an opportunity to ensure a variety of diagnoses were covered. Students in smaller centres can be actively involved with larger groups and offer variation in case content. The posted cases also represented a valuable resource for students in all years who are preparing for elective work in paediatrics, clinical rotations and examinations. What was done At the end of the paediatrics rotation, student pairs presented a patient who met Year 3 paediatrics curriculum objectives. Templates for PowerPoint™ presentations were provided in order to maintain consistency in case style. Presentations were required to be 10 minutes in duration, visual, interactive, to include question and answer sessions, a basic science slide and a multiple-choice question with relevance to the case. Paper copies of the cases were distributed to faculty for checking of content. These were then edited by elective students, who subsequently posted them on Dalmedix. Students were asked to complete questionnaires regarding their learning experience, with 9 items to be answered on a Likert scale of 1–5 (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) and 2 open-ended questions. Currently, more questionnaire data are being collected. A total of 65 PowerPoint™ case presentations have been posted on the Dalhousie intranet, available to medical students for learning. Evaluation of results and impact Over the past 3 years, 328 students have participated. One clerk was unable to obtain consent to make a presentation from the patient and family. Case-based PowerPoint™ presentations shared using Bridgit™ conferencing software have been an invaluable learning tool for medical students. Pilot questionnaires administered in 2004−05 and 2005−06 have indicated that 87% of clerks found creating and presenting a case presentation a useful learning experience. In addition, 85% of students thought cases available on the university's intranet would be a useful learning tool and 83% of clerks found it useful to watch other groups present (mean Likert score 4·2 ± 0·6). The clerks identified 3 main strengths in the case presentation learning process: learning about specific cases; practising presentations, and patient contact. Students found writing a multiple-choice question the most challenging aspect of the presentation (mean Likert score 3·9 ± 0·8). Due to the success of the case-based presentation learning component in paediatrics, a similar format has been launched in obstetrics and gynaecology. Discussion about involving an overseas medical school is underway and the cases are to be implemented as a distributed education component in a new medical school.
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 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.350 | 0.127 |
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".