The relationship between regional medical campus enrollment and rates of matching to family medicine residency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine expanded its medical education across three campus sites (Hamilton, Niagara Regional and Waterloo Regional) in 2007. Ensuring the efficacy and equivalency of the quality of training are important accreditation considerations in distributed medical education. In addition, given the social accountability mission implicit to distributed medical education, the proportion of learners at each campus that match to family medicine residency programs upon graduation is of particular interest. METHODS: By way of between campus comparisons of Canadian Residency Matching Service (CaRMS) match rates, this study investigates the family medicine match proportion of medical students from McMaster's three medical education campuses. These analyses are further supported by between campus comparisons of Personal Progress Index (PPI), Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE), Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination-Part 1 (MCCQE1) performances that offer insight into the equivalency and efficacy of the educational outcomes at each campus. RESULTS: The Niagara Regional Campus (NRC) demonstrated a significantly greater proportion of students matched to family medicine. With respect to education equivalency, the proportion of students' PPI scores that were more than two SD below the mean was comparable across campuses. OSCE analysis yielded less than 2% differences across campuses with no differences in the last year of training. The MCCQE1 pass rates were not statistically significant between campuses and there were no differences in CaRMS match rates. With respect to education efficacy, there were no differences among the three campuses' pass rates on the MCCQE1 and CaRMS match rates with the national rates. CONCLUSIONS: Students in all campuses received equivalent educational experiences and were efficacious when compared to national metrics, while residency matches to family medicine were greater in the NRC. The reasons for this difference may be a factor of resident and leadership role-models as well as the local hospital and community environment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".