Ophthalmology as a career choice among medical students: a survey of students at a Canadian medical school
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of investigations into the factors that lead medical students to pursue increasingly competitive post-graduate training programs. We sought to determine the factors that influence medical students' opinions on ophthalmology as a career and on ophthalmological medical education. METHODS: An anonymous 36-question survey was distributed to all medical students across the four program years at the Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry as a non-probabilistic convenience sample. Survey results were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U tests to determine significant differences between study sub-populations. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify correlates for positive views towards ophthalmology. RESULTS: 81% of questions had a mean positive response amongst the students. Students held negative views regarding the amount of exposure to ophthalmology in medical school. The greatest differences in opinion regarding ophthalmology were seen between those with more exposure and interest in ophthalmology compared to their counterparts with less. Regression analysis identified interest in ophthalmology as a significant correlate to a positive opinion in the field. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey demonstrates that while most students had positive views about ophthalmology, some aspects were viewed negatively. Students felt there was a lack of exposure, both educationally and clinically to ophthalmology, which may contribute to some misconceptions of the field. Early exposure appeared to be critical to forming positive opinions of ophthalmology and could be emphasized in medical education.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.224 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it