Evaluation of arts and humanities programs in surgery education: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This systematic review seeks to understand what outcomes have been reported for arts and humanities programs in surgery education. METHODS: Authors searched Medline ALL (Ovid), Embase.com, Web of Science, and Academic Search Ultimate to identify articles on evaluated arts and humanities programs in surgery education. The search identified 1,282 titles and abstracts, of which 55 underwent independent full-text review. The authors identified 10 articles that met inclusion criteria, from which they collected and analysed data. RESULTS: Medical students were the identified learners in most studies (6/10; 60%). Reflective writing was the arts and humanities activity in half of the studies (5/10; 50%); activities based on film, visual art other than film, literature, or social media in the remaining studies (5/10; 50%). Most studies (8/10; 80%) featured a non-controlled, non-randomized design. Authors categorised 5 studies (50%) as Kirkpatrick Level 1, 4 (40%) as Level 2, and 1 (10%) as Level 3. CONCLUSION: Integration of the arts and humanities into surgery education may promote increased levels of learner reflection and empathy, in addition to improved acquisition of surgical skills. More rigorous evaluation of these programs would clarify the impact of arts and humanities programs on surgery learners.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".