Medical Science Educator最新文献

{"title":"Retention Royale: a Gamified Territory-Conquest Add-on for Anki to Enhance Engagement with Spaced Repetition.","authors":"Tobias Whitford, Chase Goldberg, Syed Shehroz Hussain, Mill Etienne","doi":"10.1007/s40670-026-02721-8","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40670-026-02721-8","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Anki is widely used by medical students, yet sustaining motivation remains challenging amid high burnout rates. Retention Royale is a free, open-source Anki add-on that gamifies flashcard review to promote student learning through territory conquest, rewarding study performance with in-game currency. The add-on is available on AnkiWeb (Code: 311670562).</p>","PeriodicalId":37113,"journal":{"name":"Medical Science Educator","volume":"36 3","pages":"1509-1511"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13355958/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148431406","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Visiting Sub-internship Practices and Preferences: a National Survey through the Society of Academic Urologists.","authors":"Harrison M Drebin, Zoë C Cohen, Dagmawi Misgano, Simon Chang-Huang, Christopher B Anderson, Gina M Badalato","doi":"10.1007/s40670-026-02733-4","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40670-026-02733-4","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Urology visiting sub-internships are increasingly important in residency selection, yet practices remain poorly characterized. We aimed to delineate current sub-internship practices in selection, structure, and evaluation methods between programs.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A 16-question cross-sectional survey of sub-internship practices was distributed to faculty at 157 Society of Academic Urologists (SAU) institutions in October and November 2024 via Qualtrics. Responses were included if complete and unique to a single program. Data were analyzed qualitatively and stratified by monthly sub-intern volume (low: 0-2; moderate: 3-4; high: ≥ 5 sub-interns per month).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sub-internship leadership from 50 programs (31.8%, 50/157) completed the survey. Most programs had low (34.0%, 17/50) or moderate (52.0%, 26/50) monthly sub-intern volume. Clerkship grades, letters of recommendation, personal statements, and medical school attended were most frequently ranked criteria for selecting sub-intern applicants. Programs with high monthly sub-intern volume more frequently considered research experience among their top three selection criteria (85.7%, 6/7). Respondents most frequently cited teamwork (26.0%, 13/50), professionalism (24.0%, 12/50), communication (14.0%, 7/50), and situational awareness (12.0%, 6/50) as the most desirable qualities in sub-interns. Programs with high monthly sub-intern volume more frequently reported standardized evaluations by attendings (85.7%, 6/7) and residents (57.1%, 4/7) compared to programs with moderate (46.2%, 12/26; 26.9%, 7/26) and low (29.4%, 5/17; 17.6%, 3/17) monthly sub-intern volume, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Sub-internship priorities, expectations, and evaluation methods varied across programs and by sub-intern volume. These findings provide a foundation for future efforts to standardize and improve sub-internship clerkships, which are critical to student development and residency selection.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-026-02733-4.</p>","PeriodicalId":37113,"journal":{"name":"Medical Science Educator","volume":"36 4","pages":"2013-2019"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13582780/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148991788","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Critical Dialogues for Action: A Research Methodology for Transforming Engagement into Impact.","authors":"Lyn K Sonnenberg, Ming-Ka Chan, David Wiljer, Victor Do, Madison Taylor, Jamiu O Busari, L Jayne Beselt, Jerry M Maniate","doi":"10.1007/s40670-026-02727-2","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40670-026-02727-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Critical Dialogues for Action (CDFA) is a structured, equity-centered methodology designed to transform dialogue into systemic change in health professions education and health systems. Developed over five years, it integrates lived expertise, structured facilitation, and implementation science into the dialogue process. CDFA operates through three levels: Foundational Elements, Process and Engagement, and Action and Impact. These levels establish conditions to foster connection, disrupt power dynamics, and generate actionable outcomes. This paper outlines the model's theoretical evolution, compares it with other participatory approaches, and illustrates its application across institutional, educational, and policy contexts for transforming engagement into measurable, enduring impact.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-026-02727-2.</p>","PeriodicalId":37113,"journal":{"name":"Medical Science Educator","volume":"36 3","pages":"1305-1314"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13355998/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148430754","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"\"Strong Opinions, Loosely Held\": A Renewed Call for Error-driven Learning in Medical Education.","authors":"Hunter Scott, Brian Devorkin","doi":"10.1007/s40670-026-02735-2","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40670-026-02735-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Improving clinical reasoning is a national priority to reduce medical error. This commentary advocates for \"strong opinions, loosely held\" as a cognitive aid to improve reasoning and retention in medical education. Learners should commit confidently to decisions while remaining open to revision as new evidence emerges. Grounded in prediction error theory, which emphasizes memory retention when expectations are upset, this approach mirrors expert clinician strategies. Case-based curricula can operationalize this by prompting early hypotheses and reassessment. Despite concerns about overconfidence, we view discomfort as natural when transitioning from passive to active learning, ultimately promoting autonomy, improved retention, and deeper engagement.</p>","PeriodicalId":37113,"journal":{"name":"Medical Science Educator","volume":"36 3","pages":"1455-1458"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13356144/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148431180","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Reimagining Medical Ethics Through AI Escape Rooms.","authors":"S Kathryn Potter, Courtney A West","doi":"10.1007/s40670-026-02729-0","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40670-026-02729-0","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Medical ethics can be abstract for preclinical students, so an innovative gamification teaching strategy was designed to augment previous exposure to ethics content. An escape room was developed with the assistance of AI, which reduced faculty time and appeared to enhance students' application of medical ethics principles.</p>","PeriodicalId":37113,"journal":{"name":"Medical Science Educator","volume":"36 3","pages":"1223-1224"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13356208/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148431299","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Core, Evidence Application, Research (CEAR): a Theory to Frame Separate Skills for Evidence-Based Practice and Research in Medical Education.","authors":"Rosanna P Watowicz, Rosa K Hand","doi":"10.1007/s40670-026-02730-7","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40670-026-02730-7","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Research is embedded into the curriculum of most US medical schools. However, there is a great deal of variety in the curricular approaches to teaching research. Further, some programs choose to focus on teaching the conduct of research while others focus on the application of research findings (i.e. evidence-based practice). This variation may lead to conflation of two independent skill sets. This investigation advances a theory (called CEAR-Core, Evidence Application, Research) that research skills and evidence-application skills are independent from one another. We evaluated the CEAR model using a pre-post design and paired t-tests at a medical school with defined curricula in both research and evidence-based practice. We found that medical student skills were low in CEAR model Core skills (approximately 42% of possible maximum score on the CEAR tool at baseline). Core and Research skills increased at each timepoint, although whether the changes were significant varied by research subdomain. Evidence-application scores improved after evidence-based practice activities within the curriculum (22.8 ± 16.4% to 30.2 ± 18.4% <i>p</i> < 0.001), but did not increase significantly further after the research experience (30.2 ± 18.4% to 36.5 ± 17.3%, <i>p</i> = 0.126). Limitations include the single medical school design and the limited number of students who completed all three data collection timepoints. Overall, we believe CEAR is a valid model for medical educators to use to conceptualize the separation of research and evidence application, the core skills required for both, and the sub-domains, in their development of curricula. Additionally, the CEAR tool may be useful for student assessment and curricular evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":37113,"journal":{"name":"Medical Science Educator","volume":"36 3","pages":"1447-1453"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13355972/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148430201","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Correction to: Learning from Experience: A Scoping Review of the Inclusion of People with Lived Experience of Disability in Medical Education.","authors":"Daniela Sbrizzi, Claudia Ng, Gallego Gisselle","doi":"10.1007/s40670-026-02720-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-026-02720-9","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1007/s40670-025-02558-7.].</p>","PeriodicalId":37113,"journal":{"name":"Medical Science Educator","volume":"36 3","pages":"1117-1139"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13356102/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148430462","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"3D-Modeling/Printing of Internal Iliac Artery and Sacral Nerves: a Student Contribution to Anatomy Education Through a Discovery Learning Elective.","authors":"Nama Naseem, Jose Beltran, Janet Sinn-Hanlon, Wessam Ibrahim, Samar Hegazy","doi":"10.1007/s40670-026-02726-3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-026-02726-3","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37113,"journal":{"name":"Medical Science Educator","volume":"35 Suppl 1","pages":"153"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13153301/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147869649","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Informal Near-Peer Teaching Effects on Medical Student Pre-Clinical Learning.","authors":"Rigel P Hall, Michael M Fontana, Katherine L Frei, Claudia Mares-Gonzalez","doi":"10.1007/s40670-026-02722-7","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40670-026-02722-7","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/purpose: </strong>Informal Near-Peer Teaching (NPT), where a student at least one year senior to another instructs without faculty intervention, has long been implemented in medical curricula. However, there is a further need for formal evaluation of the effectiveness of NPT. As with traditional curriculum, continuous, evidence-based assessment and improvement are essential to maintaining excellence in medical education. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of informal NPT sessions on preclinical medical student learning.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Student performance data from three pre-clerkship cohorts were analyzed and stratified by NPT exposure. Cohort performance was compared, and regression analyses assessed associations between NPT attendance and assessment outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across two preclinical blocks, students who received NPT-refined over two years-consistently outperformed those without exposure on multiple quizzes, final exams, and overall block grades. When examined separately by class year, results were mixed, with NPT exposed cohorts demonstrating improvement on some assessments and lower performance on others. When pooled, cohorts with any NPT exposure demonstrated significantly higher scores than those with no exposure. Regression analyses showed a positive, though not uniformly significant, association between NPT attendance and performance outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Informal near-peer teaching was associated with improved performance in select assessments, particularly after two years of program development. These findings support the integration of NPT into preclinical curricula and highlight the importance of continued program refinement and evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":37113,"journal":{"name":"Medical Science Educator","volume":"36 3","pages":"1287-1293"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13356166/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148431227","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Improving Medical Assessment Validity with Generative AI: Lessons from Human-AI Interaction in Bloom's Taxonomy Classification.","authors":"Rocicleide de Lima Lopes, Marcos Kubrusly, Juliana Silva Arruda, Arnaldo Aires Peixoto Junior, Marília Marques Guimarães, José Lima de Carvalho Rocha, Hermano Alexandre Lima Rocha","doi":"10.1007/s40670-026-02719-2","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40670-026-02719-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>While Bloom's Taxonomy is essential for developing higher-order clinical reasoning, its practical application by faculty remains limited. This perpetuates a reliance on assessments that favor memorization over clinical reasoning. This study aimed to develop and validate a Generative AI tool to assist educators in accurately classifying assessment items, and to evaluate the tool's impact on medical faculty's classification accuracy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A two-phase experimental design was used. Phase 1 involved training and validating a ChatGPT-4 model using 200 medical exam items classified by a panel who established a \"gold standard\". The model's performance was then tested on an independent set of 100 items and assessed using overall accuracy, Cohen's Kappa, and Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC). Phase 2 involved experienced medical professors using the validated AI tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In Phase 1, the AI model achieved a high overall accuracy of 95.0% (95% CI: 90.0-99.0%) and \"very good\" inter-rater agreement with the expert standard (K = 0.85). In Phase 2, faculty demonstrated high overall adherence (75.2%) to the AI's recommendations. In cases of disagreement where faculty chose to override the AI, the faculty's final decision was accurate only 29.4% of the time, demonstrating human overconfidence.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Generative AI, despite a specific and predictable flaw in differentiating \"Analyze\" from \"Understand,\" serves as a powerful partner for medical faculty. The tool provides a more reliable classification than un-aided, non-expert human judgment. It can significantly improve assessment validity by supporting faculty, helping to bridge pedagogical training gaps, and promoting the development of assessments that target higher-order cognitive skills essential for medical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":37113,"journal":{"name":"Medical Science Educator","volume":"36 3","pages":"1341-1351"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13356134/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148431249","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}