Interactive continuing education workshops or conferences can improve professional practice and patient outcomes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
. Thomson O'Brien MA, Freemantle N, Oxman AD, et al. Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001;(2):CD003078 (latest version 9 Nov 2000). . QUESTION: Are continuing education meetings and workshops effective for improving professional practice and patient outcomes? Studies were identified by searching the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register, Medline (1966 to January 1999), the Research and Development Resource Base in Continuing Medical Education, and reference lists of relevant papers. Studies were selected if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-experimental studies with contemporaneous data collection, involved qualified health professionals or post graduate trainees, examined the effect of planned educational activities, and objectively measured health professional practice behaviour or patient outcomes. Studies were excluded if allocation was by participant choice or if participants were all undergraduate students. 2 reviewers extracted data on study quality, interventions, and outcomes. 32 studies (36 comparisons, 30 RCTs) involving physicians, nurses, psychotherapists, pharmacists, and other health professionals met the selection criteria. 31 studies measured health …
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.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 it