Perspectives of U.S. Ophthalmology Residents and Medical Students on Ophthalmology Exposure during Medical School
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction In recent decades, ophthalmology exposure in medical school has been increasingly reduced. In turn, medical students have expressed concern over their ophthalmic skills. Research investigating the status of ophthalmology education in U.S. undergraduate medical curricula is limited to institutional data devoid of the student or resident perspective. This study seeks to gain a better understanding of current ophthalmology education for U.S. medical students from the trainee point of view. Methods A cross-sectional survey was distributed to current U.S. medical students interested in ophthalmology and U.S. ophthalmology residents. Demographic data, ophthalmology curriculum information, respondent learning preferences, and personal reflections were recorded. Thematic analysis and chi-square tests were utilized. Results In total, 387/4,482 (8.6%) surveys were completed by respondents from 75 U.S. medical institutions. Most respondents were exposed to formal ophthalmology curriculum (63%), research (89%), mentorship (84%), and clinical experiences (87%) during medical school, and medical school curriculum was ranked the third most helpful resource for students to learn about ophthalmology. Yet, 29% of residents (n = 55) did not feel confident in their diagnostic ophthalmology skills based on their medical school exposure. Student and resident recommendations for improving ophthalmology education delivery commonly referenced nontraditional ophthalmology resources such as online videos (n = 83) to supplement traditional learning materials such as lectures (n = 56). Discussion These findings suggest that primary ophthalmology exposure in medical school has shifted toward extracurricular activities such as research and clinical observation. Considering the increasing time demands placed on the medical education system, utilizing nontraditional educational materials to supplement current undergraduate medical education in ophthalmology may provide educators with a resource to improve learner confidence and resident preparedness.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".