Assessments Used for Summative Purposes during Internal Medicine Specialist Training: A Rapid Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessments used for summative purposes of patient-facing clinical competency in specialist internal medicine training are high-stakes, both to doctors in training, as it is a prerequisite for qualification, as well as their community of prospective patients. A rapid review of the literature evaluated methods of assessments used for summative purposes of patient-facing clinical competency during specialist internal medicine training in Australia. Four online databases identified literature published since the year 2000 that reported on summative assessment in specialist medical training. Two reviewers screened and selected eligible studies and extracted data, with a focus on evidence of support for the criteria for good assessment as set out in the 2010 Ottawa Consensus framework for good assessment. Ten eligible studies were included. Four studied the mini-clinical evaluation exercise (mini-CEX), two the Royal Australasian College of Physicians short case exam, three a variety of Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) or summative entrustment and progression review processes, and one a novel clinical observation tool. The mini-CEX assessment demonstrated the most evidence in support of the Ottawa criteria. There was a paucity of published evidence regarding the best form of summative assessment of patient-facing clinical competency in specialist internal medicine training.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".