MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386523653 · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2023.2244665

Global “systemness” in medical education: A rationale and framework to assess performance

2023· article· en· W4386523653 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sawsan Abdel‐Razig, James K. Stoller

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Teacher · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical educationMEDLINEPsychologyMedicineComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Healthcare is global. The challenges of the "triple aim" - achieving high-quality healthcare, maximal value, and an excellent patient experience and outcomes - are universal. Medical education is similarly global with worldwide efforts towards competency-based reform, the adoption and adaptation of accreditation standards, and the expansion of international collaborations between healthcare organizations (HCOs). The focus of many of these efforts centers around recognizing education as a talent pipeline to serve local and global healthcare needs. Accordingly, many U.S.-based academic medical centres are pursuing an increasingly global footprint by developing international partnerships between HCOs. The educational leadership at the Cleveland Clinic (an HCO that has ventured internationally in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United Arab Emirates) has adopted a "systemness" approach to medical education collaboratives. Systemness describes the ability of academic health systems to leverage existing structures, expertise, and other resources to address broadly shared educational needs across geographies, disseminate best practices, and ultimately improve the care that is delivered. The rationale for systemness, a concept derived from the healthcare administration and business world, affords the opportunity to achieve educational outcomes through synergy that exceeds the capability of any single component of a system. In this perspective, we posit a "systemness" taxonomy to be used to assess the performance and success of international collaborations in medical education and provide examples of its application to existing international partnerships in medical education. This framework is grounded in developmental assessment approaches, akin to those used in assessing learner performance, and defines levels of educational collaboration proficiencies, ultimately towards the alignment of these efforts with the health needs of the communities they serve. As global medical education collaboratives advance, ongoing assessment of existing partnerships and further research will be needed to define competencies and integrative activities that define high-performing medical education partnerships.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.368 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical TeacherSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207