Development and Evaluation of a Mandatory Course in Geriatric Medicine for Fourth Year Medical Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: As the population ages, older adults will make up an increasing proportion of the practices of most physicians. Because of this, education of medical students in Geriatric Medicine is essential, yet there is considerable variability in the amount, timing within the curriculum, and content of geriatric training in Medical Schools. Our goal was to develop and evaluate an integrated, mandatory 3-week geriatric medicine course for fourth year medical students with emphasis on knowledge acquisition. METHODS: All fourth year medical students at Dalhousie Medical School underwent 2 ½ days of didactic teaching on core geriatric topics and a 2-week clinical rotation. Pre-rotation knowledge testing occurred on the first day of the rotation. On the final examination, students were retested on the 15 pre-rotation questions, as well as 5 additional questions that they had not encountered previously. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant improvement in examination performance from 46.9% on the pretest to 78.6% on the final examination (t=24.7, p˂.001). It is unlikely that the significant improvement in scores is simply a result of repeat testing, as students tended to score better on the five additional questions that they had not seen before. DISCUSSION: We developed a geriatric medicine course for fourth year medical students, in one integrated 3-week block, using a combination of didactic teaching and clinical encounters. We used students as their own controls, using the same questions pre- and post-rotation, and demonstrated significant knowledge acquisition on a variety of topics pertaining to geriatric medicine and care of the older patient. Future research should address the issue of translating acquired knowledge in geriatric medicine into demonstrated clinical skills when caring for the elderly.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".