Search

Context: Osteopathic (Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine [DO]) medical students account for more than 25 % of all medical students in the United States., Objectives: This study examined the predictive validity of Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) total scores and cumulative undergraduate grade point averages (UGPAs) for performance on the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination of the United States (COMLEX-USA) Level 1 and Level 2-CE (Cognitive Evaluation) licensure examinations administered by the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners (NBOME). Additionally, the study examined the degree to which MCAT total scores and UGPAs provide comparable prediction of student performance by key sociodemographic variables., Methods: This study involved a collaborative effort between the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine (AACOM) and the NBOME. Data were examined for 39 accredited DO-granting medical schools in the United States during the 2017 application cycle. Researchers utilized three regression models that included MCAT total scores, cumulative UGPA, and combined MCAT total scores and cumulative UGPA to determine predictive validity. Researchers also examined the comparability of prediction for sociodemographic variables by examining the differences between observed and predicted error for both scores and pass/fail success rates., Results: Medium to large correlations were discernible between MCAT total scores, UGPA, and COMLEX-USA examination outcomes. For both COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE scores and pass/fail outcomes, MCAT scores alone provided superior predictive value to UGPA alone. However, MCAT scores and UGPA utilized in conjunction provided the best predictive value. When predicting both licensure examination scores and pass/fail outcomes by sociodemographic variables, all three models provided comparable predictive accuracy., Conclusions: Findings from this comprehensive study of DO-granting medical schools provide evidence for the value-added benefit of taking MCAT scores and UGPA into consideration, particularly when these measures are utilized in conjunction. Further, findings provide evidence indicating that individuals from different sociodemographic backgrounds who enter medical school with similar MCAT scores and UGPA perform similarly on licensure examination outcome measures., (© 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston.)

Context: As a proposed alternative to the traditional recertification examination, CATALYST is a longitudinal formative assessment platform created on cognitive learning principles. CATALYST was designed by the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners to encourage more complex and durable practice-relevant learning and demonstration of ongoing competencies., Objective: To investigate the value of the CATALYST platform using board diplomates' subjective feedback and comparison of performance on CATALYST questions with performance on board examinations., Methods: Diplomates from 3 osteopathic specialty boards (the American Osteopathic Board of Internal Medicine, the American Osteopathic Board of Pediatrics, and the American Osteopathic Board of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) participated in this pilot study. Over the course of 16 weeks, participants were provided 2 questions per week via the CATALYST platform. An evaluation survey was emailed at the end of the study period to collect participants' feedback. Survey results and correlations of CATALYST performance with past or upcoming board examination scores were analyzed., Results: A total of 196 diplomates completed the surveys, with 95% reporting that participation in the platform would help them stay current in their specialties and 91% reporting that participation would help them provide better care to their patients. For the AOBIM, a significant correlation was found between the number of CATALYST questions answered correctly and performance on the board examination (r=0.51, P<.001). The correlations found for the AOBP and AOBOG were not significant (r=0.197, P=.296, and r=0.370, P=.075, respectively)., Conclusion: The CATALYST platform could offer valuable contributions to the board recertification process and to patient safety. Further investigations are being conducted on a new user-friendly platform.

I-123 Iofetamine (IMP) single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging of the brain in 42 patients (ages 14 days to 23 years) was compared with other localizing studies in children with neurological diseases. All had an EEG and at least one imaging study of the brain (computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or both). Seventy-eight percent of the patients had an EEG within 24-72 hours of the IMP-SPECT scan. Thirty-five (83%) had a history of seizures, and the remainder had other neurological conditions without a history of seizures. In most cases, a normal EEG reading with normal CT or MRI result predicted a normal SPECT study. When the EEG was abnormal the majority of the IMP-SPECT scans were abnormal and localized the abnormality to the same region. A comparison with CT and MRI showed that structural abnormalities involving the cortex were usually well demonstrated with IMP-SPECT imaging. Structural lesions confined to the white matter were generally not detectable with IMP-SPECT. In a few cases, SPECT scans revealed abnormalities in deep brain areas not identified by EEG. IMP-SPECT imaging is a valuable technique for the detection and localization of abnormal cerebral metabolic activity in children with seizure disorders. A correlation with CT or MRI is essential for proper interpretation of abnormalities detected with IMP SPECT imaging.