a IMPORTANCE OF RARE DISEASES AWARENESS FOR MEDICAL AND NURSING STUDENTS AT KSA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consequently, there is a need to increase the standards of medical education in the field of Rare Diseases and to revise the undergraduate and postgraduate training programs. However, while studies on medical education in the field of RDs has been conducted in various countries across the both Americas, Asia or the European Union, still little is known about the awareness of RDs among healthcare professionals in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Thus, we conducted a survey among 200 medical students and 200 nursing students from the college of applied medical sciences at aseer region. The questionnaire assessed their knowledge about the number, examples, aetiology and estimated frequency of RDs. It also evaluated respondents’ self-assessment of competence in RDs. Although the majority of respondents agreed that RDs constitute a serious public health issue both medical students and nursing students showed insufficient knowledge on the aetiology, epidemiology and prevalence of RDs, and many had problems with separating RDs from more common disorders. Moreover, they also lacked knowledge about and the central register of RD patients and reimbursement of orphan drugs in Saudi Arabia. Finally, while almost half respondents declared having had classes about RDs during their studies most perceived their knowledge about RDs as insufficient or poor and felt unprepared for caring for RD patients. Additionally, although majority of respondents in both groups believed that all physicians, regardless of their specialization, should possess knowledge on RDs many respondents did not look for such information at all. While genetics constitutes an important part of medical education, one can observe a lack of knowledge about rare diseases (RD) among medical students and healthcare professionals. Meanwhile, many RD are life threatening and chronically debilitating conditions that significantly reduce patients' quality of life. Most RD patients experience various psychiatric symptoms, behavioural changes and mental retardation. Consequently, physicians should be educated on RD. Thus, the aim of this paper is to assess the knowledge about RD among future medical professionals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".