ArticlePloS one2023
Prioritization of the concepts and skills in quantitative education for graduate students in biomedical science.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Substantial guidance is available on undergraduate quantitative training for biologists, including reports focused on biomedical science. Far less attention has been paid to the graduate curriculum and the particular challenges of the diversity of specialization within the life sciences. We propose an innovative approach to quantitative education that goes beyond recommendations of a course or set of courses or activities, derived from analysis of the expectations for students in particular programs. Due to the plethora of quantitative methods, it is infeasible to expect that biomedical PhD students can be exposed to more than a minority of the quantitative concepts and techniques employed in modern biology. We collected key recent papers suggested by the faculty in biomedical science programs, chosen to include important scientific contributions that the faculty consider appropriate for all students in the program to be able to read with confidence. The quantitative concepts and methods inherent in these papers were then analyzed and categorized to provide a rational basis for prioritization of those concepts to be emphasized in the education program. This novel approach to prioritization of quantitative skills and concepts provides an effective method to drive curricular focus based upon program-specific faculty input for science programs of all types. The results of our particular application to biomedical science training highlight the disconnect between typical undergraduate quantitative education for life science students, focused on continuous mathematics, and the concepts and skills in graphics, statistics, and discrete mathematics that arise from priorities established by biomedical science faculty. There was little reference in the key recent papers chosen by faculty to classic mathematical areas such as calculus which make up a large component of the formal undergraduate mathematics training of graduate students in biomedical areas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.