A community rheumatology practice offers an educational experience comparable to that of a university tertiary care center.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the teaching value of rheumatology patients seen in either a community rheumatology practice or in a tertiary care university center. METHODS: Consecutive patients seen at the 2 sites over a one month period were assessed for rheumatology diagnosis, complexity of rheumatologic disease, and treatments received, including number of interventions performed. The overall pedagogic value of the encounter was rated by the rheumatologist for both medical students and postgraduate trainees. RESULTS: Rheumatology patients were comparable at the 2 sites for overall pedagogic value, rheumatology diagnostic category, and complexity of disease. At the community site, however, there were more patients evaluated, more procedures performed, and more new treatments introduced. CONCLUSION: Contrary to current perceptions, comparable pedagogic value of rheumatology patients was observed outside a tertiary care setting. In the changing climate of education, and considering resource limitations that influence current rheumatology practice, community based rheumatology has the potential to offer a valuable educational experience.
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".