The value of a core clinical rotation in urology for medical students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In 2013, our institution underwent a change to the undergraduate medical curriculum whereby a clinical urology rotation became mandatory. In this paper, we evaluated the perceived utility and value of this change in the core curriculum. METHODS: Third year medical students, required to complete a mandatory 1-week clinical urology rotation, were asked to complete a survey before and after their rotation. Fourth year medical students, not required to complete this rotation, were also asked to complete a questionnaire. Chi-squared and Fisher's exact test were used for data analysis. RESULTS: In total, 108 third year students rotated through urology during the study period. Of these, 66 (61%) completed the pre-rotation survey and 54 (50%) completed the post-rotation survey. In total, there were 110 fourth year students. Of these, 44 (40%) completed the questionnaire. After completing their mandatory rotations, students felt more comfortable managing and investigating common urological problems, such as hematuria and renal colic. Students felt they had a better understanding of how to insert a Foley catheter and felt comfortable independently inserting a Foley catheter. Importantly, students felt they knew when to consult urology and were also more likely to consider a career in urology. Compared to fourth year students, third year students felt urology was an important component to a family medicine practice and felt they had a better understanding of when to consult urology. CONCLUSION: The introduction of a mandatory urology rotation for undergraduate medical students leads to a perceived improvement in fundamental urological knowledge and skill set of rotating students. This mandatory rotation provides a valuable experience that validates its inclusion.
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 | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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; 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".