Medical school dermatology education: a scoping review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dermatological diseases are widespread and have a significant impact on the quality of life of patients; however, access to appropriate care is often limited. Improved early training during medical school represents a potential upstream solution. This scoping review explores dermatology education during medical school, with a focus on identifying the factors associated with optimizing the preparation of future physicians to provide care for patients with skin disease. A literature search was conducted using online databases (Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL and Scopus) to identify relevant studies. The Joanna Briggs Institute methodological framework for scoping reviews was used, including quantitative and qualitative data analysis following a grounded theory approach. From 1490 articles identified, 376 articles were included. Most studies were from the USA (46.3%), UK (16.2%), Germany (6.4%) and Canada (5.6%). Only 46.8% were published as original articles, with a relatively large proportion either as letters (29.2%) or abstracts (12.2%). Literature was grouped into three themes: teaching content, delivery and assessment. Core learning objectives were country dependent; however, a common thread was the importance of skin cancer teaching and recognition that diversity and cultural competence need greater fostering. Various methods of delivery and assessment were identified, including computer-aided and online, audiovisual, clinical immersion, didactic, simulation and peer-led approaches. The advantages and disadvantages of each need to be weighed when deciding which is most appropriate for a given learning outcome. The broader teaching-learning ecosystem is influenced by (i) community health needs and medical school resources, and (ii) the student and their ability to learn and perform. Efforts to optimize dermatology education may use this review to further investigate and adapt teaching according to local needs and context.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it