Integrating multimorbidity education into undergraduate medical curriculum: A systematic review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multimorbidity is becoming highly prevalent across the globe. Current medical curricula predominantly focus on single-disease management, leaving future physicians underprepared to provide patient-centred care to address the multimorbidity epidemic. Through a systematic review, this short communication identified the current state of multimorbidity education in medical curricula and evaluated existing educational approaches. A narrative systematic review (CRD42024585500) of studies meeting stringent inclusion criteria focusing on multimorbidity education was conducted. The review found limited evidence regarding the integration and effectiveness of current educational approaches. Although multimorbidity education was associated with improved self-reported student confidence, there was a notable absence of structured, formal teaching frameworks, with education primarily occurring through informal clinical exposure. This systematic review discovered the absence of an evidence base on structured, validated teaching methods that are urgently needed to better prepare future physicians to manage patients with multimorbidity effectively.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 it