MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413288523 · doi:10.1002/hsr2.71171

Advancing Medical Education: Assessing Technology‐Enhanced Learning Through the Lens of the Canadian Medical Education Directions for Specialists (CanMEDS) Framework—A Perspective Study

2025· article· en· W4413288523 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mahboubeh Asadi, Zahra Karimian

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Science Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Medical educationLens (geology)Engineering ethicsSociologyMedicineEngineeringComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Aims: The CanMEDS framework is a widely adopted competency-based model that defines essential roles for physicians to ensure high-quality patient care. Technology-enhanced learning (TEL) has emerged as a transformative approach in medical education, offering flexible, interactive, and personalized learning experiences. This study explores the integration of TEL within the CanMEDS framework assessment model to enhance competency evaluation in medical education. Methods: This perspective study reviews the evolving role of TEL in medical education and its alignment with the seven CanMEDS roles: Medical Expert, Communicator, Collaborator, Leader, Health Advocate, Scholar, and Professional. It examines the benefits and challenges of TEL integration, including innovative assessment methods such as virtual simulations, artificial intelligence, and mobile applications. Results: TEL provides significant advantages in accessibility, scalability, and cost-effectiveness of competency assessments. Virtual reality and AI-driven tools enable realistic clinical scenarios and personalized feedback, improving the evaluation of complex skills. TEL also supports continuous learning and collaboration through digital platforms. However, challenges include ensuring assessment validity and reliability, addressing institutional barriers, faculty training needs, ethical concerns regarding data privacy, and disparities in technology access. Conclusion: Integrating TEL into the CanMEDS framework enhances medical education by offering innovative, flexible, and effective assessment methods. To maximize benefits, institutions must address technological, ethical, and pedagogical challenges through comprehensive implementation plans, faculty development, and clear guidelines. Emerging technologies hold promise for further advancing competency-based education, ensuring future physicians are well-equipped to meet evolving healthcare demands.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.728

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0080.012
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.445 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Science ReportsSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207