Assessing the knowledge of sudden unexpected death in the young among Canadian medical students and recent graduates: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the level of knowledge concerning Sudden Unexpected Death in the Young (SUDY) among Canadian medical students and recent graduates (≤5 years after graduating). DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was conducted by distributing a standardised, multiple choice, online questionnaire which assessed basic knowledge of SUDY. SETTING: Canadian medical schools and residency training programmes. PARTICIPANTS: 614 Canadian medical students (in either their penultimate or final year) and recent graduates (≤5 years after graduating) completed an anonymous online questionnaire. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The level of knowledge regarding molecular aetiology, clinical presentation, pharmacological management and modes of inheritance of six of the commonest conditions causing SUDY, including hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC), Brugada syndrome, catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT), long QT syndrome (LQT) and Wolff-Parkinson White syndrome (WPW), were compared between medical students and recent graduates. Questions were broken down into basic knowledge and advanced categories and analysed as a secondary outcome measure. RESULTS: Of 614 responses, approximately two-thirds were answered by recent graduates, who generally scored 10% higher on all subject categories than medical students. Overall, questions regarding HCM were best answered (40%), followed by WPW syndrome (32%), CPVT (30%), ARVC (23%), Brugada syndrome (21%) and LQT syndrome (17%). Questions categorised as basic knowledge were answered 30% and 39% correctly in medical student and recent graduate groups, respectively, and those in the advanced category were answered 20% and 25% correctly. CONCLUSIONS: Survey respondents fared poorly when answering questions regarding SUDY, which may be a reflection of inadequate medical education regarding these disorders. Standardised teaching regarding SUDY needs to occupy a stronger focus in Canadian medical curricula in order to prevent more unnecessary deaths by these syndromes in the future.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".