Transformation and Articulation of Clinical Data to Understand Students’ and Health Professionals’ Clinical Reasoning: Protocol for a Scoping Review (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND There are still unanswered questions regarding effective educational strategies to promote the transformation and articulation of clinical data while teaching and learning clinical reasoning. Additionally, understanding how this process can be analyzed and assessed is crucial, particularly considering the rapid growth of natural language processing in artificial intelligence. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to map educational strategies to promote the transformation and articulation of clinical data among students and health care professionals and to explore the methods used to assess these individuals’ transformation and articulation of clinical data. METHODS This scoping review follows the Joanna Briggs Institute framework for scoping reviews and the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist for the analysis. A literature search was performed in November 2022 using 5 databases: CINAHL (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), and Web of Science (Clarivate). The protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework in November 2023. The scoping review will follow the 9-step framework proposed by Peters and colleagues of the Joanna Briggs Institute. A data extraction form has been developed using key themes from the research questions. RESULTS After removing duplicates, the initial search yielded 6656 results, and study selection is underway. The extracted data will be qualitatively analyzed and presented in a diagrammatic or tabular form alongside a narrative summary. The review will be completed by February 2024. CONCLUSIONS By synthesizing the evidence on semantic transformation and articulation of clinical data during clinical reasoning education, this review aims to contribute to the refinement of educational strategies and assessment methods used in academic and continuing education programs. The insights gained from this review will help educators develop more effective semantic approaches for teaching or learning clinical reasoning, as opposed to fragmented, purely symptom-based or probabilistic approaches. Besides, the results may suggest some ways to address challenges related to the assessment of clinical reasoning and ensure that the assessment tasks accurately reflect learners’ developing competencies and educational progress. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/50797
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
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 | 0.130 | 0.191 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.103 | 0.022 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".