ArticleMedical science educator2025
Transcript Accuracy in Preclinical Medical School Lectures.
Article in Medical science educator, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Medical students acquire knowledge in the preclinical phase primarily through didactic lectures. Lectures are commonly delivered via video recordings and include transcripts and/or closed captions. Transcript accuracy may improve or worsen student perceptions of equity and accessibility in education, but data quantifying or otherwise exploring transcript errors in medical student education is scarce. Materials and Methods: First-year preclinical medical students were surveyed. The semi-structured survey consisted of yes/no questions, slider type questions, 5-point Likert scales, and an open-ended question to assess usage of transcripts while watching lectures and perceptions of transcript errors. Survey data were interpreted using univariate analyses and inductive open coding. The authors also audited lectures for accuracy of transcripts. Two-sample Results: Quantitative survey results from 85 students revealed that 94% of participants used transcripts when consuming lectures, 96% noticed errors, and 59% felt that errors negatively impacted their learning. An audit of 36 lectures from two curricular blocks revealed that transcript accuracy failed to meet industry standards (i.e., ≥ 99% accuracy) in 35% of clinical science lectures (e.g., the diagnosis/management of diseases) and 5% of basic science lectures (e.g., biochemistry). Conclusion: Although medical students rely on accurate transcripts of didactic lectures for both accessibility and facilitation of learning, current lecture transcripts fail to consistently meet industry standards for accuracy and correlate with student dissatisfaction. Given medical schools deliver much of their lectures as video recordings, these findings represent an important gap in need of future study. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-025-02301-2.
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.