Evaluating Medical Students' Confidence in Musculoskeletal Examination: Implications for Improving Musculoskeletal Medicine Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to feedback from previous medical students, the office of medical education at a state-funded medical school (University of Hawaii) conducted an IRB-approved survey study to formally evaluate the experience of current medical students regarding their confidence with MSK examination skills, and solicited suggestions for improvement. We collected data from students who were transitioning from second to third year regarding the following: (1) confidence in various physical exams, (2) perceived preparedness for clerkships, (3) usefulness of existing MSK clinical activities, and (4) suggestions for improvement. A majority of students expressed lack of confidence in the MSK physical exam, which was notably lower than other organ system exams. Recommendations for curriculum improvement included early integration of MSK examination teaching with corresponding anatomy laboratory sessions, inclusion of physiatry teaching, and increased small-group learning sessions. This study revealed the need for (1) synchronizing MSK clinical skills training with anatomy curriculum during the first year, and (2) inclusion of physiatry teaching in the MSK curriculum. Ideally, this study will serve as a starting point for further innovations and improvements in MSK medical education.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".