MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W21252621

The Jeremiah Metzger lecture: Osler - web - rendezvous: impact of the information explosion on medical education.

2008· article· en· W21252621 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephen B. Greenberg

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdmirationMedical schoolMedical educationMedicineClassicsPsychologyHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bert Dupont has been a mentor, colleague, and friend for over 35 years and I am honored to have been invited by him to give the 44th Jeremiah Metzger lecture. In reviewing Dr. Metzger's life, his contributions, and his role in this association, I was pleased to see that he spent most of his medical career here in Tucson. As the new Dean of Medical Education at Baylor College of Medicine, I have focused in the past year on assessing the continuum of medical education, UME → GME → CME and the effects of the information explosion on the practice of medicine. Because of my interest in and admiration for William Osler's achievements, I thought about how he would view our current and future educational issues. Have things in medical education really changed? Are we witnessing a true revolution or the natural evolution of issues debated by academic educators for the past 100 years? After teaching at both McGill University and the University of Pennsylvania Schools of Medicine, William Osler arrived at the new Johns Hopkins Hospital (1889) and medical school (1893) as the first Chair of Medicine and Chief of the Medicine Service (1). For sixteen years in Baltimore (1889 - 1905) and fourteen years in Oxford, England (1905 - 1919), Osler implemented and published many of his ideas on medical education (2–6). Through his published essays, he outlined a philosophy of life and delineated the critical issues facing his generation (Figure 1). He was concerned about multiple educational issues: the influence of teacher on student, the access to medical information through libraries and professional societies, and the centrality of the physician - patient relationship. Fig. 1 William Osler's central medical education issues. Osler was recognized during his lifetime as the consummate clinician - educator. He wanted to be remembered for bringing bedside teaching to the 3rd and 4th year medical students. He instituted the beginnings of a medicine residency program which has many similarities to how we structure ours to this day. He was a staunch benefactor of state and local medical societies and believed they were vital resources for the practicing physicians' continuing education (7). Unlike Abraham Flexner, who focused predominately on the undergraduate medical school curriculum, Osler was concerned equally about the continuum of medical education from undergraduate to post-graduate training and about the need for lifelong learning for the practicing physician. Osler's textbook, The Principles and Practice of Medicine, was first published in 1892 and became an instant best-seller (8). It went through multiple editions and was translated into many languages. For over 30 years, it was considered the single best source for practitioners who wanted to be “up to date.” During his career, there was a dramatic increase in published journals and pamphlets (9). Most of the published journals in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were not well reviewed or edited (10). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) would not be published until the 1940's. Even with the growth of medical journal publications, many physicians could not access the published literature unless they lived in large cities with medical societies and/or libraries (11). Throughout his writings, Osler voiced his concerns about the increase in the volume of medical literature, about the need for improved accessibility and quality, as well as, how the information would affect medical education across the continuum.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.010
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0060.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.009

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicInnovations in Medical Education→French-language works237,207→