Pathology Course Director Perspectives of a Recent LCME Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preparation for a Liaison Committee of Medical Education (LCME) accreditation site visit is a daunting task for any medical school, particularly for medical schools that have adopted integrated curricula. The LCME accreditation is the standard that all US and Canadian allopathic medical schools must meet in order for the school to award the degree of medical doctor. The Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USU) recently underwent a full-scale LCME accreditation visit that was conducted under the newly revised LCME standards and elements. The site visit occurred just 5 years after our school began implementing a totally revised, organ system-based curriculum. Preparing for a critical, high-stakes site visit shortly after transitioning to a totally revised, integrated module-based preclerkship curriculum presented an array of new challenges that required a major modification to the type of preparation, communication, and collaboration that traditionally occurs between course directors and departmental chairs. These included the need to ensure accurate, timely communication of curricular details to different levels of the academic administration, particularly as it related to the execution of self-directed learning (SDL). Preparation for our site visit, did, however, provide a novel opportunity to highlight the unique educational experiences associated with the study of pathology, as pathology traverses both clinical and basic sciences. Sharing these experiences may be useful to other programs that are either undergoing or who are preparing to undergo an accreditation visit and may also aid in a broader communication of the highlights or initiatives of educational activities.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.004 |
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".