Patient references in the 2005 and 2015 CanMEDS frameworks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patient involvement in postgraduate medical education (PGME) can help residents improve their communication, professionalism, and collaboration. The CanMEDS Framework defines such competencies for physicians and informs teaching and assessment activities in PGME. However, it is unclear how patients are referenced in the CanMEDS Framework and if these references encourage the active involvement of patients in PGME. To inform how patients are referenced in the revisions of the CanMEDS Framework, scheduled for publication in 2025, our aim was to determine how patients are referenced in each the 2005 and 2015 CanMEDS Frameworks. Methods: We used document analysis to examine how the term ‘patient(s)’ is referenced in the 2005 and 2015 CanMEDS Frameworks. Results: Several 2005 and 2015 CanMEDS Roles include patients in the descriptions but do not reference them in the competencies. Others do not reference patients in the descriptions or competencies, potentially detracting from the importance of involving patients. As it stands, the 2015 Health Advocate is the only Role that describes and references patients working with physicians as partners in care, facilitating potential opportunities for patient involvement in PGME. Conclusion: There are inconsistencies in how patients are described and referenced as potential partners in PGME throughout past and present CanMEDS Frameworks. Understanding these inconsistencies can inform the revision of CanMEDS that is scheduled for publication in 2025.
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 | 0.117 | 0.256 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".