Implementation of a Case Presentation Program for Clinical Nutrition Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims To implement a training method increase clinical nutritionists' knowledge and make doctors more familiar with this specialty. Methods The study was conducted in an internship course of all third semester clinical nutrition students. At first, conventional training was presented for students, and then, in the same duration, case presentation training program was implemented. The presentations were filmed and uploaded to the Internet, and the link was placed on the hospital's website. At the end of the 2 phases, the students were asked to answer the survey questionnaire. Additionally, consultation report sheets were evaluated and scored by 2 physicians. Number of consultation requests was also recorded in 2 study phases. Results The mean satisfaction score was statistically higher in the case presentation training program than in the conventional program. All the students recommended similar case report program courses for the students in the future. Although the mean consultation report score was not statistically different between the two training programs, case presentation program resulted in significantly better scores in 4 items of nutrition focused physical examinations, assessment of malnutrition, assessment of related laboratory tests, and food-drug interactions. Number of consultation requests was significantly increased during the case presentation program training compared to the conventional training from 194 to 272 (P < 0.001). Conclusion From the students' perspective, the case-based learning report was preferred to the conventional method. From the physicians' viewpoint, the answer to the counseling sheets was more complete and helpful.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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.
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".