Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the Editor: The recent article in Academic Medicine by Alper and colleagues1 revealed that as of 2006, in spite of increased attention and educational mandates, only 25% of the internal medicine clerkship directors of U.S. and Canadian medical schools reported having a formal curriculum in patient safety. The authors acknowledged that because their study's data were from 2006, their findings may underrepresent the actual number of programs with formal patient safety curricula now in place. Unfortunately, these findings are in stark contradiction to work previously published and may overestimate the actual number of U.S. medical schools with patient safety teaching programs in place, not only in 2006 but also as recently as 2008. Using the Association of American Medical Colleges' Curriculum Management and Information Tool (CurMIT), curricula from 125 U.S. MD-granting medical schools were queried.2 The resulting information indicated that from 2004 to 2008 there was an increase in the number of programs reporting any patient safety curricula; however, as of 2008, only 10.4% of U.S. M.D.-granting medical schools reported any patient-safety-specific curricular content. Furthermore, when analyzed for patient safety content as defined by the Institute of Medicine's report on patient safety,3 less than 8% had qualifying curricula. It is clear that U.S. and Canadian medical schools have not fully incorporated patient safety material into core preclinical or clinical curricula and that there is a large discrepancy between physicians' training and the safety mandates placed on practicing physicians. Additional emphasis on patient safety in all areas of medical education is necessary before the Institute of Medicine's recommendations regarding patient safety can be fully realized. Jason M. Kane, MD, MS Assistant professor of pediatrics, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University Children's Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois; [email protected].
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 | 0.008 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".