The Berlin reformed curriculum in undergraduate medical education: a retrospective of the development history, principles, and termination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Reformed Medical Curriculum (RMC) at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin was launched in autumn 1999, while medical schools in Canada, the United States, Scotland, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia already had adapted educational reforms in medical education many years before [1], [2]. For eleven years, 63 medical students per year trained at the Faculty in accordance with international standards governing the RMC. It was the first and perhaps most revolutionary reformed medical curriculum at a German university after the commencement of "Modellklausel", a new section in the Licensing Regulations for Doctors (Approbationsordnung für Ärztinnen und Ärzte) in 1999 that paved the way for fundamental reforms within undergraduate medical education in Germany. The idea was to establish and test a "pilot project of a fundamental reform of medical education in Germany" [3], thus aligning Germany with international developments and establishing a model for other reform initiatives. The first part of the article will provide an overview of how the RMC were able to emerge. It reports who initiated the project and why, who kept it running and encountered opposition and what were the social and political conditions. The second part of the article describes the principles that were fundamental for the development of the RMC. The third part illustrates the quality assurance measures, and the final section covers the termination of the RMC.
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 | 0.017 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".