Comparing the Emergency Medicine Residency Programs in Iran and around the World; a Descriptive Study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: To identify the strengths and weaknesses of emergency medicine residency curriculum in Iran, and to benefit from the experiences of successful universities, comparative studies are crucial. This study compared the components of the national curriculum of emergency medicine in the United States, Canada, the European Union, Australia, and Saudi Arabia with Iran. Method: Data for this research was collected by searching the websites of different universities and also contacting them for requesting curriculums. The leading countries in emergency medicine and one of the countries in the Middle East region (Saudi Arabia) along with the World Federation of Emergency Medicine were selected as the sample. The model used in this field is a range model that identifies four stages of description, interpretation, proximity, and comparison in comparative studies. Results: In the curriculum of the United States, Canada, the European Union, Australia, and Saudi Arabia, there were lots of similarities in expressing the general characteristics of the curriculum, mission elements, vision, values, and beliefs of the discipline, educational strategy, techniques, expected competencies, rotation programs, and evaluation method, which were also similar to the Iranian curriculum. However, the duration of residency for emergency medicine in Iran is three years, which is shorter than other countries. As expected, the number and duration of rotations are less than other countries. Also, the process of entering into this field is different in Iran and is based on an exam for entrance, while most other countries use self-requested residency program. Conclusion: Considering the results of comparing the Iranian curriculum with the curriculums of the United States, Canada, the European Union, Australia, and Saudi Arabia, it seems that Iran's program is comprehensive and complete; but, a reappraisal of the course duration and entering options are necessary to eliminate or improve the inadequacies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".