Teaching clinical thinking to first-year medical students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ability to think clearly and critically is necessary to normal human conduct. Particular forms of reasoning characteristic of practitioners of medicine have been studied, but a principled pedagogical framework that also reflects clinical practice has not been delineated. AIMS: The goals are: identify the principles that underlie the clinical thinking of physicians, develop a pedagogical framework, and design and implement curricular modules for medical students in the first year of their studies. METHODS: The authors reviewed prior work on clinical thinking of physicians and medical students as well as reflective pieces by seasoned clinicians. They also examined modalities of logic and inference used by physicians and others. The designed modules were implemented at the Faculty of Medicine at McGill University and linked to training in attentive listening and clinical observation. RESULTS: Five core features of a pedagogic framework on clinical thinking were developed and used to design and implement a series of teaching modules for first-year medical students. CONCLUSIONS: The core features, and the modules based upon them, can serve for further empirical work on clinical reasoning and lead to modules for advanced students as they progress in their acquisition of expertize.
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 | 0.010 | 0.285 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".