MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398146101 · doi:10.1002/aet2.10983

Precision medicine within health professions education: Defining a research agenda for emergency medicine using a foresight and strategy technique (FaST) review

2024· article· en· W4398146101 on OpenAlexaff
Teresa M. Chan, Brent Thoma, Bradley D. Gordon, Susan Farrell, Martin Pusic, Daniel Cabrera, Michael A. Gisondi, Holly Caretta‐Weyer, Christopher D Stave, Felix Ankel

Bibliographic record

VenueAEM Education and Training · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanMcMaster UniversityToronto Metropolitan UniversityMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFutures studiesEngineering ethicsMedicineAlternative medicineMedical educationPolitical scienceComputer scienceEngineeringPathologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Precision medicine, sometimes referred to as personalized medicine, is rapidly changing the possibilities for how people will engage health care in the near future. As technology to support precision medicine exponentially develops, there is an urgent need to proactively improve our understanding of precision medicine and pose important research questions (RQs) related to its inclusion in the education and training of future emergency physicians. Methods: A seven-step process was employed to develop a research agenda exploring the intersection of precision and emergency medicine education/training. A literature search of articles about precision medicine was conducted first, which informed the creation of future four scenarios in which trainees and practicing physicians regularly discuss and incorporate precision medicine tools into their discussions and work. Based on these futurist narratives, potential education RQs were generated by an expert panel. A total of 59 initial questions were subsequently categorized and refined to a priority list through a nominal group voting method. The top/priority questions were presented at the 2023 SAEM Consensus Conference on Precision Medicine, Austin, Texas, for further input. Results: Eight high-value education RQs were developed, reflecting a holistic view of the challenges and opportunities for precision medicine education in the knowledge, skills, and attitudes relevant to emergency medicine. These questions contend with topics such as most effective pedagogical methods; intended resulting outcomes and behaviors; the generational differences between practicing emergency physicians, educators, and future trainees; and the desires and expectations of patients. Conclusions: Emergency medicine and emergency physicians must be prepared to understand precision medicine and incorporate this information into their "toolbox" of thinking, problem solving, and communication with patients and colleagues. This research agenda on how best to educate future emergency physicians in the use of personalized data to provide optimal health care is the focus of this article.

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)0.058
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.104
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0580.104
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0150.011
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.015
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.607
GPT teacher head0.623
Teacher spread0.016 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAEM Education and TrainingSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207