Competencies for practicing medical oncology with common sense: A global curricula review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
9018 Background: The Common Sense Oncology (CSO) movement advocates for high-quality, patient-centered cancer care by emphasizing evidence-based, patient-relevant outcomes and equitable access to care through improved evidence generation, interpretation, and communication. A key part of CSO’s mission is training oncologists to incorporate these principles into their practice. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate how competencies in global postgraduate medical oncology curricula align with CSO principles. Methods: We conducted a document analysis of publicly available postgraduate medical and clinical oncology curricula. Curricula were identified through: (1) searches in Education Source, EMBASE, and PubMed using the terms 'oncology', 'curriculum', and 'competency-based'; (2) a grey literature search; and (3) requests to medical education experts. Curricula in English, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, or Hebrew were included to ensure regional representation, while accounting for the research team’s language proficiency. Competencies were categorized into eight domains aligned with CSO principles, including critical appraisal, cost and value of cancer care, communication about outcomes and treatment risks, equity in accessing cancer care, ethical principles, and integration of psychosocial oncology, survivorship, and palliative care. Two team members reviewed each curriculum, resolving discrepancies collaboratively, with unresolved cases adjudicated by the first or senior author. Results: We analyzed 16 curricula (Australia/New Zealand, Brazil, Canada, the European Union, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Spain, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the ESMO/ASCO joint curriculum). Ten (63%) were from high-income regions, and six (37%) were from low/ middle-income countries (LMIC). The most frequently identified domains were critical appraisal (94% of curricula), communication (94%), palliative care (94%), and cost/value of care (88%). Less frequent domains were equity in accessing cancer care (56%), ethical principles (56%), and survivorship care (63%). Four (25%) curricula, all from high-income regions, covered all CSO-relevant domains, while three (19%) addressed four or fewer. Competencies related to equity and ethics were found in 70% of high-income curricula but only in 33% of LMIC. Conclusions: Competencies reflecting CSO principles were identified in global oncology curricula, with emphasis on critical appraisal, communication, palliative care, and psychosocial oncology. Competencies related to equity, ethical principles and survivorship care were less frequently observed. Notable gaps were observed between high-income countries and LMIC, though language limitations may have influenced our findings. Our results will inform the development of a globally relevant competency framework for common sense in oncology.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".