MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Development of Effective Learning Modules to Integrate the Anatomy and Clinical Skill of Musculoskeletal System

2013· article· en· W3175246713 on OpenAlexaff
Majid Doroudi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMemorizationRote learningTest (biology)CommitCurriculumMedical educationRelevance (law)PsychologyFeelingMedicineComputer scienceMathematics educationTeaching methodPedagogyCooperative learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Development of Effective Learning Modules to Integrate the Anatomy and Clinical Skill of Musculoskeletal System Many students find memorizing MSK materials difficult and daunting, and often find themselves feeling overwhelmed by the number of muscles, bones, innervations, vessels and special tests that they must commit to memory. The overall objective of this study was to encourage students to adopt a more anatomical approach to clinical skills and also to show explicitly the relevance of musculoskeletal anatomy, thus moving away from rote memorization of physical exam skills and anatomical knowledge. The focus of this project was to develop effective learning modules that will help students learn musculoskeletal materials and enhance their education environment. In order to accomplish the goal of interactive modules we used the Medicine and Dentistry Integrated Curriculum Online (MEDICOL) Vista to create two modules that integrated the anatomy and clinical skill of musculoskeletal system. Using the MEDICOL we were able to add interactive labeled diagrams to review MSK anatomy and pictures to study clinical skills and integrated quizzes to test student knowledge. The MSK modules were evaluated objectively from the survey questionnaire results and subjectively from the comments from the results. Before the modules 55% of students felt they knew the MSK materials well or very well. After the modules 83% of students felt they knew the MSK materials well or very well.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicInnovations in Medical Education→French-language works237,207→