MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102584527 · doi:10.1186/1472-6920-8-53

The need for national medical licensing examination in Saudi Arabia

2008· article· en· W2102584527 on OpenAlexaff
Sohail Bajammal, Rania Zaini, Wesam Abuznadah, Mohammad Al-Rukban, Syed Moyn Aly, Abdulaziz Boker, Abdulmohsen H. Al‐Zalabani, Mohammad Al-Omran, Amro Al-Habib, Mona Hmoud AlSheikh, Mohammad Alsultan, Nadia Fida, Khalid Alzahrani, Bashir Hamad, M. A. Al Shehri, Khalid A. Bin Abdulrahman, Saleh Al‐Damegh, Mansour M. Al-Nozha, Tyrone Donnon

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Education · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersKing Abdulaziz UniversityUniversity of OxfordJazan University
KeywordsLicensureMedical educationStrengths and weaknessesPhysical examinationMedicineWork (physics)United States Medical Licensing ExaminationMedical schoolPsychologyEngineeringSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Medical education in Saudi Arabia is facing multiple challenges, including the rapid increase in the number of medical schools over a short period of time, the influx of foreign medical graduates to work in Saudi Arabia, the award of scholarships to hundreds of students to study medicine in various countries, and the absence of published national guidelines for minimal acceptable competencies of a medical graduate. DISCUSSION: We are arguing for the need for a Saudi national medical licensing examination that consists of two parts: Part I (Written) which tests the basic science and clinical knowledge and Part II (Objective Structured Clinical Examination) which tests the clinical skills and attitudes. We propose this examination to be mandated as a licensure requirement for practicing medicine in Saudi Arabia. CONCLUSION: The driving and hindering forces as well as the strengths and weaknesses of implementing the licensing examination are discussed in details in this debate.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.335 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations55
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical EducationSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207