Developing and Integrating Asynchronous Web-Based Cases for Discussing and Learning Clinical Reasoning: Repeated Cross-sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Trainees rely on clinical experience to learn clinical reasoning in pediatric emergency medicine (PEM). Outside of clinical experience, graduate medical education provides a handful of explicit activities focused on developing skills in clinical reasoning. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we describe the development, use, and changing perceptions of a web-based asynchronous tool to facilitate clinical reasoning discussion for PEM providers. METHODS: We created a case-based web-based discussion tool for PEM clinicians and fellows to post and discuss cases. We examined website analytics for site use and collected user survey data over a 3-year period to assess the use and acceptability of the tool. RESULTS: The learning tool had more than 30,000 site visits and 172 case comments for the 55 published cases over 3 years. Self-reported engagement with the learning tool varied inversely with clinical experience in PEM. The tool was relevant to clinical practice and useful for learning PEM for most respondents. The most experienced clinicians were more likely than fellows to report posting commentary, although absolute rate of commentary was low. CONCLUSIONS: An asynchronous method of case presentation and web-based commentary may present an acceptable way to supplement clinical experience and traditional education methods for sharing clinical reasoning.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.158 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".