What makes an article a must read in medical education?

BACKGROUND: The dissemination of published scholarship is intended to bring new evidence and ideas to a wide audience. However, the increasing number of articles makes it challenging to determine where to focus one's attention. This study describes factors that may influence decisions to read and recommend a medical education article. METHODS: Authors analyzed data collected from March 2021 through September 2022 during a monthly process to identify "Must Read" articles in medical education. An international team of health sciences educators, learners, and researchers voted on titles and abstracts to advance articles to full text review. Full texts were rated using five criteria: relevance, methodology, readability, originality, and whether it addressed a critical issue in medical education. At an end-of-month meeting, 3-4 articles were chosen by consensus as "Must Read" articles. Analyses were used to explore the associations of article characteristics and ratings with Must Read selection. RESULTS: Over a period of 19 months, 7487 articles from 856 journals were screened, 207 (2.8%) full texts were evaluated, and 62 (0.8%) were chosen as Must Reads. During screening, 3976 articles (53.1%) received no votes. BMC Medical Education had the largest number of articles at screening (n = 1181, 15.8%). Academic Medicine had the largest number as Must Reads (n = 22, 35.5%). In logistic regressions adjusting for the effect of individual reviewers, all rating criteria were independently associated with selection as a Must Read (p < 0.05), with methodology (OR 1.44 (95%CI = 1.23-1.69) and relevance (OR 1.43 (95%CI = 1.20-1.70)) having the highest odds ratios. CONCLUSIONS: Over half of the published medical education articles did not appeal to a diverse group of potential readers; this represents a missed opportunity to make an impact and potentially wasted effort. Our findings suggest opportunities to enhance value in the production and dissemination of medical education scholarship.

Evaluation of early post-natal pig mammary gland development and human breast cancer gene expression.

Breast cancer is the second leading cause of death in women after lung cancer, and only 5% of patients with metastatic breast cancer survive beyond ten years of diagnosis. Considering the heterogeneous subclasses of breast cancer, current cancer models have shortfalls due to copy number variants, and genetic differences of humans and immunocompromised animal models. Preclinical studies indicate stem cell activity in early post-natal mammary development may be reactivated in the human adult as a trigger to initiate cell proliferation leading to breast cancer. The goal of the work reported herein was to compare genetic expression of early development, post-natal pig mammary glands to the literature reported genes implicated in different subclasses of human breast cancer. Differentially expressed genes associated with breast cancer and present in early developing pig samples include NUCB2, ANGPTL4 and ACE. Histological staining confirmed E-cadherin, Vimentin, N-cadherin, and Claudin-1, which are all implicated in malignant cancer. Due to the homology of gene expression patterns in the developing pig mammary gland and reported genes in human breast cancer profiles, this research is worthy of further study to address a potential model using mammary development cues to unravel breast cancer biology.