MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7128490180 · doi:10.53702/i2375-5717-35.4.8

Enhancing the Awareness of Osteopathic Learning Opportunities Through a Newsletter

2025· article· W7128490180 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Eilerman, Anna Benton, Nicholas Shneker, Mohamed Abo Abdo, Daryl Mar, Mallory Faherty, Rhonda Reynolds

Bibliographic record

VenueThe AAO Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiversity and Career in Medicine
Canadian institutionsHeritage College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteopathic medicine in the United StatesAudience measurementAcademic institutionSet (abstract data type)MEDLINEData collectionContinuing medical educationOsteopathy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Medical professionals have historically received timely information through newsletters that deliver the most up-to-date information. Such newsletters save the reader time in searching through resources by providing them information in succinct format. Therefore, a central Ohio institution with many osteopathic post-graduate programs created a monthly osteopathic newsletter to communicate its learning opportunities in an effective manner. Objective: To identify the frequency of medical staff utilizing a monthly osteopathic newsletter, the items valued most in a newsletter, and the preferred method of obtaining medical news. Methods: The osteopathic newsletter was put into circulation among medical education staff, residents, fellows, and affiliated medical students for one year between December 2021 and November 2022. After a year, a survey was sent to all newsletter recipients through the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) system program and respondents answered questions regarding readership, engagement, and suggested areas of improvement. The data was compiled over the course of six weeks, analyzed using qualitative statistics, and used to implement changes in newsletter layout, content, and distribution. The newsletter was advertised as “new and improved” with this reflective content. After an additional six months of distribution, a follow-up survey was sent in June 2023. Comparisons were made between the first and second surveys using chi-squared tests and the p-value was set at 0.05. Results: There was statistically significant increase in readership from the first survey to the second survey at +27.5% (p<.0.001). Regarding content, the “News” and “Clinical Pearls” sections were top rated in both surveys and there were statistically significant increases in choice of these sections as time progressed (+15.5%, p = 0.024 for “News”; and +25.5%, p <0.001 for “Clinical Pearls,” respectively). While regular readership of the newsletter continued to grow throughout the survey, 95% of all respondents answered they had learned more about osteopathic medicine. Conclusions: This study suggests that e-newsletters like this osteopathic newsletter could be a successful option for systems to engage with groups, improve communication, and update readers on news and osteopathic educational content.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe AAO Journal→Same topicDiversity and Career in Medicine→French-language works237,207→