Informatics in Undergraduate Medical Education: Analysis of Competency Frameworks and Practices Across North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the advent of competency-based medical education, as well as Canadian efforts to include clinical informatics within undergraduate medical education, competency frameworks in the United States have not emphasized the skills associated with clinical informatics pertinent to the broader practice of medicine. OBJECTIVE: By examining the competency frameworks with which undergraduate medical education in clinical informatics has been developed in Canada and the United States, we hypothesized that there is a gap: the lack of a unified competency set and frame for clinical informatics education across North America. METHODS: We performed directional competency mapping between Canadian and American graduate clinical informatics competencies and general graduate medical education competencies. Directional competency mapping was performed between Canadian roles and American common program requirements using keyword matching at the subcompetency and enabling competency levels. In addition, for general graduate medical education competencies, the Physician Competency Reference Set developed for the Liaison Committee on Medical Education was used as a direct means of computing the ontological overlap between competency frameworks. RESULTS: Upon mapping Canadian roles to American competencies via both undergraduate and graduate medical education competency frameworks, the difference in focus between the 2 countries can be thematically described as a difference between the concepts of clinical and management reasoning. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that the development or deployment of informatics competencies in undergraduate medical education should focus on 3 items: the teaching of diagnostic reasoning, such that the information tasks that comprise both clinical and management reasoning can be discussed; precision medical education, where informatics can provide for more fine-grained evaluation; and assessment methods to support traditional pedagogical efforts (both at the bedside and beyond). Assessment using cases or structured assessments (eg, Objective Structured Clinical Examinations) would help students draw parallels between clinical informatics and fundamental clinical subjects and would better emphasize the cognitive techniques taught through informatics.
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 | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".