An In-Depth Analysis of Canadian Medical Students and Physicians Concussion Knowledge: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Research has shown that concussion education in a proportion of Canadian medical school curriculums is lacking. The objective of this study was to measure concussion knowledge among medical trainees, while comparing the impact of lecture-based and clinical learning on their concussion knowledge scores. Methods: A validated concussion knowledge survey was distributed to MS1, MS2, MS3, and MS4 students, as well as post-graduate learners in family medicine, pediatrics, and emergency medicine. Results: Participants with clinical learning experience (MS3 + MS4 + Residents) scored significantly higher (p < 0.05) in the concussion knowledge test when compared to pre-clinical (MS1 + MS2) participants. 42.2% of participants learned about concussions from a lecture and 28.1% learned from a student organized interest group. Only 25% of participants correctly identified the red flags associated with a concussion. Conclusion: More emphasis should be placed on teaching concussion diagnosis and management in medical education.
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 | 0.012 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".