ArticleInteractive journal of medical research2026
Rethinking Basic Science Teaching in Medical Education: A Viewpoint on Its Past, Present, and Future.
Article in Interactive journal of medical research, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Unlabelled: Basic sciences remain a cornerstone of medical education, but the terms of the debate about their importance have changed. The central risk is no longer their formal exclusion from medical curricula but their curricular invisibility: the gradual dilution of mechanistic reasoning within integrated, technology-mediated, and institutionally unequal training environments. In this Viewpoint, we revisit the past, present, and future of basic science teaching to argue that reform must protect conceptual progression, curricular visibility, and clinical transfer. Active learning, curricular integration, digital tools, and AI may strengthen scientific literacy, but only when they are anchored in faculty development, institutional support, and explicit commitments to rigor and equity.
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.