ReviewFrontiers in medicine2025
When the self "
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital identity is no longer an add-on to professional life; it is a primary arena where the self is performed, negotiated, and sustained. Health professions education (HPE) depends on visibility; learners seeking mentors, academics signaling scholarship, clinicians building legibility on rating sites. Yet that same visibility is cross-pressured by codes of conduct, context collapse, and the ethics of self-disclosure. This critical narrative review treats digital identity as identity-as-work in public, persistent, searchable systems (the sum of traces others later encounter when platforms remix and rank them). Bringing symbolic interactionism (performance, audience, impression management) into conversation with a sociomaterial stance (platforms and artifacts co-produce action), and drawing a light Lacanian inflection where helpful, we read the corpus through four facets: authenticity, visibility, continuity (idem/ipse), and agency. Searches across Scopus, Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar returned 1,638 records; after 256 duplicates, 1,382 titles/abstracts were screened, 234 full texts assessed, and 45 sources included. Reflexive memos and iterative comparison guided an interpretive synthesis discussed with wider team. Two recurrent modes (tropes) surfaced. In a mediating mode, "digital neurotic self" curates authorship under constraint, running legibility tests (Is this true to my values? Which audience will see it? What trace will it leave?) and adjusting voice, timing, and placement. Practices include audience design (lists, close-friends, pseudonyms), contextual disclosure, dual-account compartmentalization, and portfolio stitching to maintain continuity while staying findable. In an instrumentalised mode, the 'digital psychotic self' is built for consumption and tuned to platform legibility; counters, templates, and recommendations, thin authored selfhood, nudge toward micro-celebrity, and drift from ipse (authored) to idem (community sameness). Across studies, homophily, metrics, and templated formats push toward uniformity; without active curation, narrative coherence frays into platform-tuned fragments. For HPE, we argue that digital identity is a dimension of professional identity formation. Educators should coach authorship and stewardship (audience design, narrative/portfolio stitching, sociolinguistic competence), teach platform literacy (how feeds rank/normalize; how ratings/altmetrics discipline presentation), and create counter-spaces that protect backstage rehearsal while enabling intentional visibility. Finally, help learners move beyond perpetual exploration toward value-anchored commitments, so visibility becomes a record of work rather than a performance for counters.
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.