Saudi Medical Students’ Interest in Basic Medical Sciences and the Factors Affecting It
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate medical students’ interest in basic sciences and identify perceived obstacles for choosing a career in basic science.METHODS: A cross-sectional survey study was conducted and carried out between March and May 2016 with 600 undergraduate medical students at the College of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Students’ interest towards basic medical sciences was evaluated using a questionnaire.RESULTS: A total of 352 medical students (180 male and 172 female) responded. The leading reasons for not pursuing a career in basic sciences were that medical students aimed primarily to become clinicians (71.6%), would prefer to engage in clinical research (40.4%), were concerned about salaries in basic sciences (36.6%), and had not experienced exciting practical training in basic sciences (26.2%).CONCLUSION: Integrating basic sciences and clinical medicine and increasing research participation will result in more positive attitudes towards basic sciences. Furthermore, reducing the students’ concerns will encourage medical students to engage more with basic medical science.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".