Many hours of watching medical TV shows is associated with greater medical knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Television (TV) is a popular and effective media in the formation of behaviours, beliefs and emotions. Watching TV is a main hobby in people's lives, and has become an increasingly more common hobby for children nowadays as opposed to several decades ago. However, while many studies have reported the negative effects, there have been little to no studies investigating whether a positive effect may exist. The aim of this study was to determine whether individuals who watch medical dramas are generally more knowledgeable about medicine than those who do not watch medical dramas. This was a cross-sectional survey of adolescents and young adults using an e-questionnaire. The questionnaire had four sections - a consent form, demographics of respondents, TV show(s) respondents watched and assessment of medical knowledge. Questionnaires were circulated to the international community, with a focus on respondents in Canada, the US and Nigeria. Responses were analysed using statistical analysis software. Between August and December 2017, a total of 746 consenting respondents completed the questionnaire. The average knowledge score of all respondents on medical terminologies was 6.80 out of 10. For respondents who had a history of watching medical TV shows, they were more knowledgeable than those without such a history (p = 0.0008). Additionally, those who watched more than one season of TV were more knowledgeable than those who had watched less than one season (p < 0.0001). The results suggest that people who have a history of watching TV shows are more knowledgeable than those without such a history, and also that those who watch more hours of medical TV shows are more knowledgeable than those who watch only a few hours. Future studies could investigate whether medical TV shows causes higher knowledge (as this study suggests association), and to ultimately determine whether it can be an essential component of increasing medical knowledge of the population, and in turn, patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".