MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392712188 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-078252

Changes in medical student attendance and its impact on student educational outcomes: a systematic review protocol

2024· review· en· W4392712188 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Palaniappan Ganesh Nagappan, Samuel Brown, Sarah Sayers, Shazia Absar, Sapphire Rou Xi Tan, Isla Kuhn, Edward Lau, Charlotte Tulinius

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovations in Educational Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAttendanceMedical educationMEDLINEMeta-analysisObservational studyScopusSystematic reviewGrading (engineering)PsycINFOFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on medical education, with many institutions shifting to online learning to ensure the safety of students and staff. However, there has been a decline in in-person attendance at medical schools across the UK and worldwide following the relaxation of social distancing rules and the reinstation of in-person teaching. Importantly, this trend has been observed prior to the pandemic. While reflected within the literature, there is currently no systematic review describing these changes. We aim to find out how medical students' attendance is changing as documented within the literature and its impact on their educational outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This systematic review will follow the guidelines of the Centre of Research and Dissemination, Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. We will search the major databases of Medline via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, Scopus, Web of Science, British Education Index via EBSCOhost and ERIC via EBSCOhost.Two reviewers will independently screen each paper and extract data, with a third reviewer for dispute resolution. All studies reporting on medical students from various universities, both graduate and undergraduate and describing changes in attendance and/or students' educational outcomes will be included. Risk of bias in individual studies will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and confidence in cumulative evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research approach. A narrative synthesis of the findings from all included studies will be reported. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review of existing publicly available literature. We will subsequently aim to publish the results of this systematic review in a peer-reviewed journal.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.103
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.087
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1030.087
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.018
Bibliometrics0.0170.014
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0080.010
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0090.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0770.012

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 head0.296
GPT teacher head0.710
Teacher spread0.414 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicInnovations in Educational Methods→French-language works237,207→