Medical Data Mining Course Development in Postgraduate Medical Education: Web-Based Survey and Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medical postgraduates' demand for data capabilities is growing, as biomedical research becomes more data driven, integrative, and computational. In the context of the application of big data in health and medicine, the integration of data mining skills into postgraduate medical education becomes important. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to demonstrate the design and implementation of a medical data mining course for medical postgraduates with diverse backgrounds in a medical school. METHODS: We developed a medical data mining course called "Practical Techniques of Medical Data Mining" for postgraduate medical education and taught the course online at Peking Union Medical College (PUMC). To identify the background knowledge, programming skills, and expectations of targeted learners, we conducted a web-based questionnaire survey. After determining the instructional methods to be used in the course, three technical platforms-Rain Classroom, Tencent Meeting, and WeChat-were chosen for online teaching. A medical data mining platform called Medical Data Mining - R Programming Hub (MedHub) was developed for self-learning, which could support the development and comprehensive testing of data mining algorithms. Finally, we carried out a postcourse survey and a case study to demonstrate that our online course could accommodate a diverse group of medical students with a wide range of academic backgrounds and programming experience. RESULTS: In total, 200 postgraduates from 30 disciplines participated in the precourse survey. Based on the analysis of students' characteristics and expectations, we designed an optimized course structured into nine logical teaching units (one 4-hour unit per week for 9 weeks). The course covered basic knowledge of R programming, machine learning models, clinical data mining, and omics data mining, among other topics, as well as diversified health care analysis scenarios. Finally, this 9-week course was successfully implemented in an online format from May to July in the spring semester of 2020 at PUMC. A total of 6 faculty members and 317 students participated in the course. Postcourse survey data showed that our course was considered to be very practical (83/83, 100% indicated "very positive" or "positive"), and MedHub received the best feedback, both in function (80/83, 96% chose "satisfied") and teaching effect (80/83, 96% chose "satisfied"). The case study showed that our course was able to fill the gap between student expectations and learning outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We developed content for a data mining course, with online instructional methods to accommodate the diversified characteristics of students. Our optimized course could improve the data mining skills of medical students with a wide range of academic backgrounds and programming experience.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".