ArticlePerspectives on medical education2026
Exploring "Talent" in Medical Education: A Scoping Review.
Article in Perspectives on medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reframing Validity: How Values Shape Assessment in Postgraduate Medical Education.Perspectives on medical education · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The term 'talent' appears in health professions education (HPE) but is variably defined and often conflated with performance proxies. Through a scoping review, the authors sought to map how 'talent' and related terms are used/defined in medical education across stages and use cases. Methods: A scoping review (Arksey-O'Malley; Levac; PRISMA-ScR) with descriptive mapping and content analysis of charted items was performed. The search was conducted across OVID-Medline, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, focusing on studies related to talent in medical education from 1946 to May 20, 2024. The authors included not only the term talent but also broadened the review to include adjacent concepts, such as aptitude and giftedness. Two reviewers independently assessed titles, abstracts and full texts using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A third reviewer resolved screening discrepancies. Relevant concepts were mapped for reporting, and a content analysis identified research gaps, trends, and patterns across global, regional and specialty contexts. The papers were tiered into two groups: Tier 1, directly mentioning the term talent; Tier 2, adjacent terms often related to talent. Findings: The authors reviewed 189 studies loosely related to talent in medical education: 47 (25%) were Tier 1 papers that directly mentioned talent, and 142 (75%) were Tier 2 (adjacent terms). The literature primarily originated from North America (41%, 77/189) and Europe (30%, 56/189) Most papers focused on identifying individuals with high potential (74%, 141/189), particularly in medical school selection, while less attention was given to themes like retention, equity and leadership. Conclusion: Although 47 papers contained the term "talent", there was a paucity of papers that defined talent within medical education or applied a framework/theory. Interdisciplinary research may be a way to better introduce this concept to our field.
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.