MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406214444 · doi:10.5430/jct.v14n1p60

The Application of Student Standardized Patients in Cultivating the Humanities Quality of Medical Students-Taking the Teaching of Foundation of Clinical Skills as an Example

2025· article· en· W4406214444 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chunting Lu, Andong Fan, Biyao Su, Dan Wang, Jun Guo, Si-Min Huang, Jing Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Curriculum and Teaching · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIdeological and Political Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJinan University
KeywordsMedical educationContext (archaeology)HumanismData collectionQuality (philosophy)PsychologyTeaching methodControl (management)MedicineMathematics educationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To explore the application effect of Student Standardized Patients (SSP) in Teaching of Foundation of Clinical Skills. Methods: Our school's 2017 clinical major (six-year program) students were selected as the control group, and the 2018 clinical medicine major (six-year program) students were selected as the experimental group. The control group used traditional teaching methods, with students practicing consultation in the ward. The observation group used student standardized patient (SSP) combined with humanistic care teaching methods, with SSP and students conducting consultation training. The exam scores and final theoretical exam scores, as well as medical history collection data from both groups, were compared in the context of the teaching of the Foundations of Clinical Skills. At the same time, to understand the satisfaction of 2018 grade students with SSP teaching, as well as their evaluation of the teaching model, medical history collection, and mastery of humanistic literacy through questionnaires. Results: The medical history collection and final theoretical exam scores of the experimental group were higher than those of the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05); The survey results show that students generally have high satisfaction with SSP consultation teaching. Most students believe that using SSP practice is helpful in improving consultation skills, and that using SSP consultation teaching is beneficial for cultivating their humanistic qualities. Conclusion: This study found that scientific training of SSP, combined with scenario simulation and its application in Teaching of Foundation of Clinical Skills, can effectively improve students' practical skills and theoretical grades in medical history collection. Additionally, it plays a role in fostering students' medical humanities qualities.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.441 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Curriculum and TeachingSame topicIdeological and Political EducationFrench-language works237,207