Est-ce que le potentiel en esprit critique est corrélé aux compétences en lecture critique de la littérature médicale?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Critical appraisal of medical literature is a mandatory skill to practice evidence-based medicine. The relation between the critical appraisal skills and the critical thinking potential has been rarely assessed in the literature. AIM: To assess the relation of critical thinking potential to critical appraisal of medical literature competencies. Besides, they tried to highlight the variation of the critical thinking potential according to the students' level. METHODS: The authors conducted a mixed study associating a quantitative and a qualitative approach. The study included second year (SYME), third year (TYME) and postgraduate medical students (CME) and family doctors (FD) from the same faculty of medicine. All the students received the same active training focused on critical appraisal of medical literature. They were asked to fulfil a pre-requisite test and a self-assessment questionnaire before the training session and a final test after the training. The self-assessment questionnaire was conceived by an expert committee and assessed the main characteristics of critical thinking consisting of sensitivity to context, self-correction and search for criteria. Three months after the training, the students were interviewed using a semi-structured interview. The SPSS software 16.0 was used. RESULTS: In our study, 58.9% of the students presented a high critical thinking potential profile. Their scores varied according to their levels with better scores in SYME and FD and intermediate scores in TYME and CME. The pre-requisite test scores varied according to the critical thinking profile and the level. On the other hand, final test scores didn't differ according to the critical thinking profile or the level. CONCLUSION: Our results put emphasis on the variation of the critical thinking potential according to the students' levels. The better results of the SYME students in comparison to those in the TYME put emphasis on the necessity of changing curriculum in order to enhance the sensitivity and the inclination of the students.
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 | 0.019 | 0.152 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".