MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403330935 · doi:10.2196/57229

Learning Styles of Medical Students, Surgical Residents, Medical Staff, and General Surgery Teachers When Learning Surgery: Protocol for a Scoping Review

2024· review· en· W4403330935 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLearning Styles and Cognitive Differences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternshipLearning stylesMedical educationProtocol (science)MedicineTheme (computing)PsychologyMathematics educationComputer scienceAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Learning styles are biological and developmental configurations of personal characteristics that make the same teaching method effective for some and ineffective for others. Studies support a relationship between learning style and career choices in medicine, resulting in learning style patterns being observed in different residency programs, including in general surgery, from medical school to the last stages of training. The methodologies, populations, and contexts of the few studies pertinent to the matter are very different from one another, and a scoping review on this theme will enhance and organize what is already known. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to identify and map out data from studies on the learning styles of medical students, surgical residents, medical staff, and surgical teachers. METHODS: The review will consider studies on the learning styles of medical students in a clinical cycle or internship, surgical residents with no restriction on year of residency, medical staff in general surgery, or general surgery's medical faculty. Primary studies published in English, with no specific time frame, will be considered. The search will be carried out in four databases, and reference lists will be searched for additional studies. Duplicates will be removed, and two independent reviewers will screen the titles, abstracts, and full texts of the selected studies. Data collection will be performed using a tool developed by the researchers. A results summary will be presented with figures, narratives, and tables. A quantitative and qualitative analysis will be carried out and further results will be shared. RESULTS: The search was funded on September 25, 2023. Data collection was performed in the two following months. Of the 213 articles found, 135 were excluded due to duplication. The remaining 78 articles will have their titles and abstracts analyzed by three of the researchers independently to select those that meet the eligibility criteria. This data is expected to be published in the first semester of 2025. CONCLUSIONS: Conducting a scoping review is the best way to map what is known about a subject. Understanding how students, residents, staff, and even teachers prefer to learn surgery is key to staying up to date and knowing how to best educate those pursuing a surgical career. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework 75ku4; https://osf.io/75ku4. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/57229.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.593
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.440
GPT teacher head0.660
Teacher spread0.220 · 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