Back to the Basic Sciences: An Innovative Approach to Teaching Senior Medical Students How Best to Integrate Basic Science and Clinical Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abraham Flexner persuaded the medical establishment of his time that teaching the sciences, from basic to clinical, should be a critical component of the medical student curriculum, thus giving rise to the "preclinical curriculum." However, students' retention of basic science material after the preclinical years is generally poor. The authors believe that revisiting the basic sciences in the fourth year can enhance understanding of clinical medicine and further students' understanding of how the two fields integrate. With this in mind, a return to the basic sciences during the fourth year of medical school may be highly beneficial. The purpose of this article is to (1) discuss efforts to integrate basic science into the clinical years of medical student education throughout the United States and Canada, and (2) describe the highly developed fourth-year basic science integration program at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. In their critical review of medical school curricula of 126 U.S. and 17 Canadian medical schools, the authors found that only 19% of U.S. medical schools and 24% of Canadian medical schools require basic science courses or experiences during the clinical years, a minor increase compared with 1985. Curricular methods ranged from simple lectures to integrated case studies with hands-on laboratory experience. The authors hope to advance the national discussion about the need to more fully integrate basic science teaching throughout all four years of the medical student curriculum by placing a curricular innovation in the context of similar efforts by other U.S. and Canadian medical schools.
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 | 0.032 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".