The impact of the “Brain Drain” involving Saudi physicians: A cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to elucidate the brain drain phenomenon involving Saudi medical students by assessing their characteristics and intentions and related factors. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional survey-based study conducted at Qassim University, Saudi Arabia. The subjects included 150 prefinal or final year medical students, who completed a modified version of a questionnaire developed by Akl et al. Results: Ninety-six students intended to study abroad with 48 and 33 planning to study in Canada and the USA, respectively. Country preference differed according to class ranking, and 69% and 33.3% of students in the top and bottom thirds of the class intended to study in Canada (P = 0.047). Male students were more likely to express the intention to study abroad. However, women were significantly more likely to remain abroad relative to males (P < 0.001). The only factor associated with intention to study abroad was the year of study and those in the final year were 60% less likely to express an intention to study abroad relative to those in prefinal years (P = 0.012). Conclusion: Most of our individuals intended to study abroad. It was varied according to gender differences. The primarily destination is Canada. This could present a challenge in meeting the high demand for staff in the health-care service in Saudi Arabia and exacerbate the current shortage of physicians in future.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".