MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412011281 · doi:10.2196/66766

How Learning Styles Characterize Medical Students, Surgical Residents, Medical Staff, and General Surgery Teachers While Learning Surgery: Scoping Review

2025· review· en· W4412011281 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 Medical Education · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLearning Styles and Cognitive Differences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintMedical educationMedicineLearning stylesSurgeryPsychologyMathematics educationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Learning style is a biologically and developmentally imposed configuration of personal characteristics that makes the same teaching method effective for some and ineffective for others. Studies support a relationship between learning style and career choice, resulting in learning style patterns observed in distinct types of residency programs, which can also be applied to general surgery, from medical school to the latest 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 unequivocally enhance and organize what is already known. Objective: The goal of this study is to identify and map out data from studies that report on learning styles in medical students, surgical residents, medical staff, and surgical teachers. Methods: The search strategy was performed on September 25, 2023, by a librarian and digital search strategy expert, through the descriptors "learning, style" and "surgery." The databases consulted were Embase, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PubMed through descriptors and their synonyms, according to MeSH (Medical Subject Headings). Of the 213 articles found, 135 articles remained after the exclusion of duplicates. The remaining 78 articles were analyzed by 3 of the researchers independently. A total of 27 articles were selected, and 2 articles were excluded because the full article was not found. Results: A total of 25 articles were included in the review. A total of 96% (n=24) of the articles used cognitive theories as their theoretical basis. Regarding learning style instruments, 36% (n=9) articles used the visual, aural, read, and kinesthetic learning method instrument, and 40% (n=10) articles chose Kolb's learning style inventory. The papers concentrate especially on the 2010s, and most of them are from North America (16/25, 64%) or Europe (6/25, 24%). The smallest study had 15 participants and the biggest had 1549 participants. The included studies primarily focused on surgical residents (21/25, 84%), with fewer targeting faculty and staff (9/25, 36%). The primary objectives of the studies were to investigate the relationship between learning styles and performance (15/25, 60%), gender differences (7/25, 28%), changes over time (4/25, 16%), and motivation (3/25, 12%). Conclusions: This scoping review reveals a limited and geographically concentrated body of research on learning styles in surgery education, primarily focusing on surgical residents and using Kolb's learning style inventory and visual, aural, read, and kinesthetic learning method instruments. Considerable gaps exist regarding geographical diversity and the study of medical staff and faculty. These findings underscore the need for future research with a broader scope to better inform educational strategies in surgery.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.380 · 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