MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2337997036 · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000001169

Increasing Scholarly Activity Productivity During Residency: A Systematic Review

2016· review· en· W2337997036 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michelle D. Stevenson, Elizabeth M. Smigielski, Monique Naifeh, Erika L. Abramson, Chris Todd, Su‐Ting T. Li

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionPsycINFOCINAHLMEDLINEAccreditationInclusion (mineral)Graduate medical educationCurriculumMedical educationMedicineCochrane LibraryProductivityFamily medicinePsychologyNursingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Although resident participation in scholarly activity is mandated by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, programmatic factors associated with success are not defined. This systematic review's objective was to determine which interventions are effective in increasing resident scholarly activity productivity (RSAP), as measured by participation in scholarly activity, presentations, or publications. METHOD: The PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and ERIC databases were searched through October 2013. English-language articles evaluating interventions to increase RSAP in U.S. or Canadian residency programs were included, without date limits. Two independent reviewers selected articles for inclusion and extracted data. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: Of the 6,248 records screened, 80 studies underwent data abstraction. Twenty-six described outcomes without a comparison group, leaving 54 studies representing 13 medical and surgical specialties. Interventions included required scholarly activity participation, protected research time, research curricula, research directors, dedicated research days, and research tracks. Focusing on the 35 studies reporting statistical analysis, RSAP was associated with all interventions. There were some differences in intervention effectiveness between medical and surgical specialties. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions, including protected time, research curricula, or specialized research tracks, generally result in increased participation in scholarly activity in residency programs, with mixed effects on resident presentations or publications. In many studies, interventions were bundled, suggesting that programs may need to provide increased structure and rigor through multiple pathways. The findings highlight the need for a clear definition of resident scholarly activity success aligned specifically to individual program and resident aims.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.074
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.074
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.007
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.273
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.240 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
DomainIncentives
GenreReview

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

Citations127
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic MedicineSame topicHealth and Medical Research ImpactsFrench-language works237,207