Global trends in continuing medical education and continuing development: A proposal for implementation in Korea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is to introduce an effective and systematic accreditation and evaluation system of continuing medical education (CME) and continuing professional development (CPD) in Korea, suitable for the future development, and based on the review of the characteristics of well-recognized systems implemented in western countries such as the US and Canada. CME and CPD comprise programs that expand the clinical knowledge and skills required of physicians as well as educational activities aiming to maintain, develop, and increase knowledge, specialized skills, or performance standards for provision of better medical services. These include not only self-directed activities but also official activities, such as leadership activities, professional development, and evaluation of the practitioner’s level of knowledge and competence. Recently, continuing education for doctors has emphasized CPD, centered around learners, in a departure from CME, centered around educators. Each CME/CPD program in the US and Canada has unique features. However, they share common features of self-directed learning, competency-based education, and evaluation. Although there are remain problems, the Continuing Medical Education Accreditation and Evaluation Council of the Korean Medical Association, as a unique accreditation authority for CME, is currently developing a new CME/CPD system, which would constitute an idealistic onesystem for Korean physicians oriented toward future development, designed to fulfill standards equivalent to that of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education or any other internationally well-recognized organization.
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 | 0.021 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".