MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effectiveness of Clinical Presentation (CP) Curriculum in teaching clinical medicine to undergraduate medical students: A cross-sectional study.

2022· preprint· en· W4211081570 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Saroj Adhikari Yadav, Sangeeta Poudel, Swotantra Gautam, Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, Samikchya Baskota, Aaradhana Adhikari, Binod Duwadi, Nischit Baral, Sanjay Yadav

Bibliographic record

VenueF1000Research · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumMedical educationSurpriseTest (biology)MedicinePresentation (obstetrics)Cross-sectional studyFamily medicinePerceptionMedical schoolPsychologyPedagogyPathologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Introduction: </ns3:bold> The Clinical Presentation (CP) curriculum was first formulated in 1990 at the University of Calgary, Canada. Since then, it has been adopted at various medical schools, including Patan Academy of Health Sciences (PAHS), a state-funded medical school in a low-income country (LIC), Nepal. This study aims to evaluate the perceived effectiveness of the CP curriculum by students and faculty at PAHS, and test knowledge retention through a surprise non-routine exam administered to students. </ns3:p> <ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Method:</ns3:bold> This is a cross-sectional study to evaluate the efficacy of the CP curriculum in teaching clinical medicine to the first batch of MBBS students of PAHS School of Medicine. Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Committee (IRC)-PAHS (Ref no std1505911069). Perceived effectiveness was evaluated using a set of questionnaires for faculty and students. A total of 33 students and 34 faculty filled the perception questionnaires. Subsequently, a questionnaire consisting of 50 Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) from different clinical medicine disciplines was administered to test students’ knowledge retention. Out of 49 students, 38 participated in the surprise non-routine exam. </ns3:p> <ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Result:</ns3:bold> A significantly higher number of faculty preferred the CP curriculum compared to the traditional system of teaching clinical medicine (16 vs 11, Kruskal Wallis: 0.023, ie. P-value &lt; 0.05). A significantly higher number of the students liked and recommended CP curriculum in the clinical year of medical education (20 vs. 13 with p-value &lt; 0.05). In the non-routine surprise exam, two thirds of the students scored 60% or above. </ns3:p> <ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Conclusion:</ns3:bold> Both faculty and students perceive that the CP curriculum system is an effective teaching and learning method in medical education, irrespective of their different demographic and positional characteristics. The students’ overall performance was good in surprise, non-routine exams taken without scheduling or reminders. </ns3:p>

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.105
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.090
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1050.090
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.635
Teacher spread0.493 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueF1000ResearchSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207