Multiple Mini-Interview Curriculum Mapping: A New Method to Personalize the MMI Process for Medical Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple Mini-Interview Curriculum Mapping: A New Method to Personalize the MMI Process for Medical Schools Nicholas Patete, MS-II, College of Allopathic Medicine, Kyle Bauckman Ph.D, Assistant Professor, College of Allopathic Medicine The process of applying to medical school is extremely competitive with only 41% of applicants matriculating into an American allopathic medical school. The number of applicants in 2019 was 53,371 and each applicant applied to an average number of 17 individual American allopathic medical schools making a total of 869,819 applications.1 Despite this large application pool, medical schools have the difficult task of selecting future physicians who match the individual school’s mission and objectives. A holistic review approach, as suggested by the AAMC, is important in order to select not only applicants who will make good medical students, but also applicants who match the individual medical school’s goals and mission statement.2 We are proposing a new Multiple Mini-interview (MMI) strategy to better personalize the process for our own school which can be adopted by other medical schools in the U.S. and Canada. The malleability of the MMI is beneficial as it allows schools to provide a holistic review which is not “one size fits all”, but instead is personalized to individual school goals and mission statements. By mapping MMI questions to our school Medical Education Program Objectives (MEPOs), we plan to rate applicant’s MMI performance based on the individual’s performance in each objective. We will then compare the applicant’s performance in each objective to other applicants and the average matriculant’s performance on radar charts. This method is intended to allow interviewers and admissions committee members to achieve higher confidence in accepting students who best fit the individual medical school. References: 2019 FACTS: Applicants and Matriculants Data. AAMC. https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/students-residents/interactive-data/2019-facts-applicants-and-matriculants-data. Accessed July 14, 2020. Holistic Review in Medical School Admissions. AAMC Students, Applicants and Residents. https://students-residents.aamc.org/choosing-medical-career/article/holistic-review-medical-school-admissions/. Published January 8, 2016. Accessed July 14, 2020.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".