MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199188910 · doi:10.18438/eblip29860

Information Services in Evidence Based Medical Education: A Review of Implementation Trends

2021· review· en· W3199188910 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sedigheh Khani, Sirous Panahi, Ali Pirsalehi, Ata Pourabbasi

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIran University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)Computer scienceScopusProcess (computing)Evidence-based practiceCitationMedical educationEvidence-based medicineScheduleEmpirical evidenceDocumentationWorld Wide WebMEDLINEKnowledge managementMedicinePsychologyAlternative medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective – Evidence based medical education requires supportive information services to facilitate access to the needed educational evidence. Information services designed specifically for evidence based medical education are limited or locally developed for educational units. For librarians to have an opportunity to cooperate efficiently with medical educators in evidence based medical education, they require an empirical prototype for transmission of clinical evidence at the right place and the right time. Therefore, there is a need to recognize types of information services which support evidence based medical education. The purpose of this review is to identify implementation trends of evidence based educational information services. Methods – We found related studies by implementing search strategies in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, LISTA, and Google Scholar with keywords like: evidence based medical education, information services, and library services. We used reference-checking and citation-checking of related articles for completing the process of locating relevant articles. After employing inclusion and exclusion criteria, we selected 11 articles for inclusion in the review and analyzed them using a narrative review technique. Results – After analyzing the results of the included studies, we identified two elements categorized as program development and five elements categorized as implementation trend. Prerequisites of program and the process of designing were essential parts of program development of information services. Schedule and type of access, how to receive educational-clinical questions, information services types, responding time, and providing evidence based outputs were the elements of the implementation process of educational supported information services. Conclusion – Designing an evidence based educational information service strongly depends on the information needs of learners at each educational level. Schedule and type of access to information service, time of responding to the received query, and preparation of evidence based output are essential factors in designing practical educational-developed information services.

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)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.116
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.116
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0190.032
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.134
GPT teacher head0.552
Teacher spread0.418 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207