Communication skills Assessed at OSCE are not Affected by Participation in the Adolescent Healthy Sexuality Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We proposed that first year medical students who voluntarily participated in the Healthy Sexuality adolescent program would perform better than their peers on an adolescent counseling station at the year-end OSCE (Objective Structured Clinical Examination). In addition we compared medical students? communication skills at the time of the program as assessed by self, peers and participating adolescents. METHODS: Nineteen first year medical students voluntarily participated in the ongoing Healthy Sexuality program. Adolescent participants, medical student peer participants and medical students assessed communication comp onents on a 7-point Likert scale at the end of the program. At the year-end OSCE, all first year medical students at the University of Western Ontario were assessed at an adolescent counseling station by a standardized patient (SP) and a physician exa miner. Statistical analysis examined differences between the two groups. RESULTS: Students who participated in the Healthy Sexuality program did not perform better than their colleagues on the year-end OSCE. A statistically significant correlation between physician examiner and SP evaluations was found (r = 0.62). Adolescent participants communication skills assessments in the Healthy Sexuality Program demonstrated no significant correlation with medical student assessments (self or peer). CONCLUSIONS: Voluntary intervention with adolescents did not result in improved communication skills at the structured year-end examination. Further investigation will be directed towards delineating differences between SP and physician examiner assessments.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Non-randomized trial | medium |
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".