MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944779859 · doi:10.1684/epd.2019.1039

Roadmap for a competency‐based educational curriculum in epileptology: report of the Epilepsy Education Task Force of the International League Against Epilepsy

2019· article· en· W2944779859 on OpenAlexaff
Ingmar Blümcke, Alexis Arzimanoglou, Sándor Beniczky, Samuel Wiebe

Bibliographic record

VenueEpileptic Disorders · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEpilepsy research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumMedical educationTask (project management)LeagueEpilepsyBridge (graph theory)MedicineTask forcePsychologyPedagogyEngineeringPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Teaching competency in the diagnosis and clinical management of epilepsy is of utmost importance for the ILAE. To achieve this mission, the Task Force for Epilepsy Education (EpiEd) developed a competency-based curriculum for epileptology, covering the spectrum of skills and knowledge for best medical practice. The curriculum encompasses seven domains, 42 competencies, and 124 learning objectives, divided into three levels: entry (Level 1), proficiency (Level 2), and advanced proficiency (Level 3). A survey of the currently existing ILAE-endorsed teaching activities identified a significant gap in education of basic knowledge of epileptology (Level 1). To bridge this gap, a web-based educational tool is being developed. A virtual campus will be constructed around the curriculum, integrating the various educational activities of the ILAE. This paper describes the development of the curriculum and future tasks necessary to achieve the educational goal of the ILAE.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations97
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpileptic DisordersSame topicEpilepsy research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207