Continuing medical education: AMEE Education Guide No 35
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This guide is designed to provide a foundation for developing effective continuing medical education (CME) for practicing physicians. For the purposes of this work, continuing medical education is defined as any activity which serves to maintain, develop, or increase the knowledge, skills and professional performance and relationships that a physician uses to provide services for patients, the public, or the profession (American Medical Association 2007; Accreditation Council for CME 2007). The term continuing professional development (CPD) is broader and has become more popular in many areas of the world. As defined by Stanton and Grant, CPD includes educational methods beyond the didactic, embodies concepts of self-directed learning and personal development and considers organizational and systemic factors (Stanton & Grant 1997). In fact, this guide describes many modalities that may be defined as CME or CPD. In the interest of simplicity, we will use the term continuing medical education (CME) throughout, with the understanding that the same strategies may be applied to non-clinical continuing professional education. For those who do not work exclusively in CME, many terms and processes may be unfamiliar. This guide is intended to provide a broad overview of the discipline of CME as well as a pragmatic approach to the practice of CME. The format provides an overview of CME including history and rationale for the discipline, followed by a practical approach to developing CME activities, the management of the overall CME programme and finally, future trends. At the end of the guide you will find resources including readings, websites and professional associations to assist in the development and management of CME programmes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.196 | 0.200 |
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".