Undergraduate Dermatology Education in Canada: A National Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Canadian dermatology curriculum was reviewed in 1983, 1987, 1996, and 2008. All these surveys highlighted the disproportionately low level of dermatology teaching in relation to the significant amount of skin disease seen by physicians. Since the official adoption and dissemination of the Canadian Professors of Dermatology (CPD) core curriculum and competencies, there has been no assessment of how these changes have influenced dermatology curriculum. OBJECTIVE: This survey gathered information on the current status of undergraduate dermatology education across Canadian medical schools. METHODS: A survey was sent electronically to all undergraduate dermatology directors at each of the 17 Canadian medical schools. RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2017, dermatology teaching has increased 25% to 25.6 ± 17.2 hours of teaching. However, 75% of this teaching is delivered in preclinical years. The number of faculty members, both dermatologists and nondermatologists, has also increased. A growing number of schools are now using electronic formats of teaching. Most schools (59%) are covering all the CPD core curriculum topics. CONCLUSION: Dermatology education is demonstrating positive trends with regards to teaching hours and faculty members. Nevertheless, a more even distribution of content so that students have increased clinical exposure should be achieved. Furthermore, an online atlas of resources would be helpful in standardising curriculum.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".