What happens to misunderstandings of biomedical concepts across a medical curriculum?

Research on the extent and nature of commonly misunderstood fundamental biomedical concepts across a medical curriculum is scarce. These misunderstandings could point toward robust misconceptions. We examined first whether common misunderstandings persist throughout a medical curriculum, followed by a fine-grained analysis to identify their nature. We designed and administered a 2-tier test to 987 medical students across our curriculum, with 8 questions covering the respiratory and cardiovascular systems, cell division, and homeostatic processes. Proportions of incorrect responses were computed. Four questions where misunderstandings persisted were further qualitatively analyzed. A one-way ANOVA showed the proportion of incorrect responses decreased significantly by students' academic year [F(6, 986) = 96.05, P < 0.001]. While novices and end-of -first-year students showed similar proportion of incorrect responses (P > 0.05), incorrect responses decreased significantly between first years and second years (P < 0.001). Thereafter, the proportion of incorrect responses remained stable from second to final year (P > 0.05), with ∼35% of incorrect responses. Five questions showed no decrease of incorrect responses between second and final years, with two questions where final year students performed marginally better than novices. A Chi-square analysis, with Bonferroni post hoc test, showed certain misunderstandings appeared frequently across the curriculum. The qualitative analysis of the open-ended questions yielded 15 categories of common misunderstandings of fundamental biomedical concepts in all years of training. If educators become aware of commonly misunderstood biomedical concepts, preventative measures could be taken to prevent robust misconceptions.

Safety and immunogenicity of the HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine in HIV-positive women in South Africa: a partially-blind randomised placebo-controlled study.

In developing countries, risk of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection may be increased by the high prevalence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. We evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of the HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine in HIV-infected women in South Africa. Asymptomatic HIV-positive women aged 18-25 years (N=120) were stratified by CD4⁺ T-cell count and randomised (1:1) to receive HPV-16/18 vaccine (Cervarix®; GlaxoSmithKline Vaccines) or placebo (Al[OH]3) at 0, 1 and 6 months (double-blind). HIV-negative women (N=30) received HPV-16/18 vaccine (open label). Anti-HPV-16/18 antibody and CD4⁺ T-cell responses, CD4⁺ T-cell count, HIV viral load, HIV clinical stage and safety were evaluated for 12 months. The safety and reactogenicity profile of the HPV-16/18 vaccine was comparable in HIV-positive and HIV-negative women. Irrespective of baseline HPV status, all HIV-positive and HIV-negative women who received the HPV-16/18 vaccine were seropositive for both HPV-16 and HPV-18 after the second vaccine dose (month 2) and remained seropositive for both antigens at month 12. Anti-HPV-16/18 antibody titres at month 12 remained substantially above levels associated with natural infection. The HPV-16/18 vaccine induced sustained anti-HPV-16/18 CD4⁺ T-cell responses in both HIV-positive and HIV-negative women. No impact of baseline CD4⁺ T-cell count or HIV viral load was observed on the magnitude of the immune response in HIV-positive women. In HIV-positive women, CD4⁺ T-cell count, HIV viral load and HIV clinical stage were unaffected by HPV-16/18 vaccine administration. In conclusion, the HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine appears immunogenic and well-tolerated in women with HIV infection. Study ID: 107863/NCT00586339.