Daily journal club: an education tool in palliative care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Journal clubs are a valuable tool for medical education. This paper describes a unique daily journal club format utilized by our palliative care programme and presents the results of a questionnaire sent to trainees exploring satisfaction with its educational value. We reviewed the number and type of articles presented at the journal club over 1 year. A questionnaire was mailed to participating family medicine residents and palliative care fellows. The number of articles presented over 1 year was 252. Pain and symptom control, psychosocial issues and drugs other than opioids were topics accounting for 72% of the presentations. Half were given by attending physician staff, 38% by trainees and 12% by multidisciplinary visitors. Palliative care fellows indicated significantly higher levels of satisfaction than family medicine residents, particularly in the areas of clinical applicability, acceptability of the daily schedule and overall educational value. The increased emphasis on evidence-based practice in palliative care suggests that a journal club could be a useful educational tool. The results from our experience could be applied to other palliative care programmes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".