Needs assessment of undergraduate education in otolaryngology among family medicine residents.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the adequacy of otolaryngology teaching in undergraduate medical education (UME) and to determine the general level of comfort of family medicine residents in managing and assessing diseases affecting the ears, nose, and throat. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. METHODS: A sample of family medicine residents at the University of Western Ontario (N = 68) completed a questionnaire inquiring into their exposure to topics in otolaryngology during their UME. They were also asked to comment on their present comfort with knowledge and skills specific to otolaryngology. RESULTS: Family medicine residents suggest that there is generally little otolaryngology training in UME; 66.7% of respondents who received UME in Canada suggested that they received very little classroom instruction and 75.6% received very little clinical otolaryngology instruction. Residents identified specific otolaryngologic conditions with which they felt particularly uncomfortable. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that students receive very little exposure to otolaryngology in UME and highlighted specific conditions and procedures that family medicine residents lack confidence in managing and performing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".