Skip to main content

New MCAT Will Be a 'Monster Exam'


July 30, 2012 (New Orleans, Louisiana) — There are major challenges to increasing underrepresented minorities in medicine, among them the new Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT) that is scheduled to be introduced in 2015, according to Brenda E. Armstrong, MD, dean of admissions at the Duke University School of Medicine, in Durham, North Carolina.
"The new MCAT is a monster exam," said Dr. Armstrong in a keynote address here at the National Medical Association 2012 Annual Convention and Scientific Assembly. Dr. Armstrong is also professor of pediatrics and pediatric cardiovascular medicine at Duke.
The test, she noted, will not only ask far more about the field of natural sciences, it will also ask about aspects of psychosocial health, the humanities, and other nonmedical issues.
New Test Items
The recommendations of the M5 Committee of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) describe 4 test sections: biological and biochemical foundations of living systems; chemical and physical foundations of biological systems; psychological, social, and biological foundations of behavior; and critical analysis and reasoning skills.
Dr. Armstrong noted that the natural sciences sections of the exam will test not only introductory biology, but also organic and inorganic chemistry and concepts of physics; highly rated biochemistry concepts at the level taught in most first-semester biochemistry courses; cellular/molecular biology topics at the level taught in most introductory biology sequences; and basic research methods and statistical concepts described by many baccalaureate faculty as important to success in an introductory science course.
The test will also ask applicants to use their knowledge of natural science concepts to demonstrate skill in scientific inquiry and reasoning, research methods, and statistics.
The section on critical analysis and reasoning skills will test examinees' reasoning by asking them to critically analyze information provided by passages from a wide range of social and behavioral sciences and humanities. It will not require specific knowledge in these disciplines but, by calling them out, might prompt students to read broadly as they prepare for medical school. The test will include passages about ethics and philosophy, cross-cultural studies, and population health, she said.
Questions Remain Unanswered
As the revision moves forward, Dr. Armstrong said she "suspects there will be changes."
"We don't know if the MCAT, as it is currently conceptualized and formatted, is the best functional test of aptitude and skill-set development," she explained.
She asked whether the application process should include a dynamic test of problem-solving and critical thinking aptitude, and whether it should test for bioinformatics exposure and aptitude. "In other words, should we change the interview process?" she continued.
Dr. Armstrong also questioned whether it is realistic to think that standardization of course content and competencies can be achieved, "given local politics within university departments" and, if not, whether there is "an overarching rubric that can be developed for all schools to assess competencies."
She touched on a core issue related to the underrepresentation of minorities — to audience applause — asking whether decisions can be made about a student's ability to handle medical school "without taking into account the effect of the lump sum of substandard education going way back."
New MCAT Is a Positive Change
However, Marc A. Nivet, EdD, chief diversity officer for the AAMC, defended the new MCAT to Medscape Medical News.
"The reason we revised the MCAT is to ensure that the physicians of the future have the right understanding of the broad social determinants of health. Yes, the MCAT is a test of one's capacity to be a successful medical student, but with the revision, we are saying that...the courses you take before you come to medicine" are really important, he said.
Dr. Nivet explained that the AAMC wants to encourage a broader understanding of the social and behavioral determinants of health, balanced with an understanding of science. "That's a big push in our changing the MCAT," he said.
"What you are hearing from Dr. Armstrong is that change is hard. The road is not going to be easy the first few years, but we are allowing ourselves the flexibility to adapt," he said.
"We will be very critical of ourselves so that the MCAT remains as fair as a standardized exam can be," he noted.
He emphasized that the AAMC has advocated for diversity for 40 years, "and we only want to accelerate this.... We do not want to disenfranchise any particular groups of students by socioeconomic status, race, or ethnicity," he said.
To meet this aim, the AAMC will meticulously assess the value of these revisions, "question by question," and will be proactive in areas where problems are expected.
The association suspects that the greatest "struggle" with the new MCAT will come from students in "lower-resource institutions," which are historically the colleges and universities serving black and Hispanic students, and "liberal arts colleges without large endowments," he said. These institutions will receive "outreach and support" from the AAMC, which aims to quell potential problems before they occur, he said. "We care about making sure we are not unfairly harming any students in this process."
Threats to Diversity
Dr. Armstrong expressed her concerns in the context of a larger discussion about obstacles to diversity in medical schools. These challenges include the effect of the Scientific and Behavioral and Social Sciences Foundations for Future Physicians on premed preparations, the looming Fisher vs the University of Texas Supreme Court test of affirmative action (scheduled to be heard in the fall), the rising cost of a medical education, and the impact of the US News & World Report "rankings" on the strength of institutional priority for and interest in creating diverse classes, she said.
Her overriding suggestion to help face and overcome these and other obstacles is "mentoring," and doing so on multiple levels, from elementary school to college.
"I want to sound an alarm. We are in deep trouble, and it is worse than it was years ago," Dr. Armstrong told the mostly black audience. "The only way we can turn this around is to mentor personally and professionally."
Dr. Armstrong and Dr. Nivet have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Missing Data Lead FDA Panel to Vote Against Rivaroxaban for ACS May 23, 2012 (Updated May 24, 2012) (Silver Spring, Maryland) — The missing data issues plaguing the ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51 trial of the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting, the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus clopidogrel, or ticlopidine. Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the ATLAS ACS TIMI 46 phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the risk of bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage, but the studies were hindered by early patient withdrawals and missing data. We Don't Know What We're Missing Based on the ATLAS ACS 2 results, FDA reviewer Dr Karen Hicks recommended approval of rivaroxaban for the requested indications except all-cause mortality. However, another FDA reviewer, Dr Thomas Marciniak, was adamant that the trial results are not interpretable because about 12% of the patients had incomplete follow-up, far higher than the 1% to 1.5% differences in the end-point rates between rivaroxaban and placebo. A total of 1294 subjects discontinued the trial prematurely, and the company was only able to contact 183, of which 177 were confirmed to be alive. Because of the patient dropouts, the company adopted a "modified intention-to-treat analysis," whereby patients were observed for 30 days after randomization or the global end date for the trial, instead of observing all the patients until the end of the trial as the FDA originally suggested. Marciniak criticized the sponsor's efforts to follow the patients and said that three patient deaths not counted in the modified intention-to-treat analysis may just be the "tip of the iceberg." Because the percentage of patients whose ultimate vital status remains unknown is much greater than the reported differences in mortality rates, the claimed mortality benefits are not reliable. The majority of the panel sided with Marciniak. For example, Dr Sanjay Kaul (University of California, Los Angeles) voted "no" because "there was enough uncertainty in the quality and robustness of the data that dissuaded me from voting yes. . . . The 'missingness' of the data doesn't invalidate it, but it certainly makes it hard to infer [the conclusion]." Dr Steven Nissen (Cleveland Clinic, OH) said that the decision to use the modified intention-to-treat analysis had a "profound impact" on the interpretability of the data. "It's saying we don't care what happens after 30 days, [and] that colored the trial in ways we couldn't recover from." Given the risk of major bleeding, "I want to see better evidence that this strategy of adding an Xa inhibitor or a direct thrombin inhibitor or something else to a good antiplatelet agent is robustly better for the patient," Nissen said. He recommends that the companies run a new trial of the 2.5 twice-daily dose of rivaroxaban using a strict intention-to-treat approach, but, he said, "I don't expect the death benefit to be too robust." Several panelists said they were concerned that the patients who dropped out of the trial were disproportionately likely to have a bleeding event, which led them to quit the trial, or a "protopathic" event, as statistician Dr Scott Emerson (University of Washington, Seattle) put it. "We're worried that an impending event is what is changing their behavior. We see that all the time in clinical trials--that regularly measured end points do not pick up [all of] the events," he said. He said that since the company was only able to contact 183 of the over 1200 patients who dropped out, it is possible that the dropouts skew the outcomes comparison of the trial. "Differential event rates after dropout are the number-one thing we're afraid of, so you have to explore it" in a statistical sensitivity analysis of the potential impact of these unknown outcomes. "It would not surprise me if, at the end of the day, these data did not hold up under a proper sensitivity analysis," he said. "What I want to know is, among the people who had events, how differential was the follow-up, but I can tell you by just looking at it, there was a very slightly different amount of follow-up of the people in the treatment arm. But I don't know whether everyone in the treatment arm was cured and they were trekking in the Himalayas and everyone in the placebo arm went home to die. I don't know that that's not the case." Dr Maury Krantz (University of Colorado, Denver) voted in favor of approval but said he does not know how rivaroxaban would perform in general clinical practice, especially when used with aspirin and clopidogrel. "I felt very much torn by this. This isn't a simple paradigm shift. It means going to triple therapy, which is really a three-headed monster in many ways. I think that what you're going to see in practice, if this is not done carefully with the proper labeling and secondary studies, is really dramatic magnification of bleeding and perhaps minimization of the efficacy benefit."

May 23, 2012   (Updated May 24, 2012)  (Silver Spring, Maryland)  —  The missing data issues plaguing the  ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51   trial of the factor Xa inhibitor  rivaroxaban  (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the  FDA  Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting , the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus  clopidogrel , or  ticlopidine . Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the  ATLAS ACS TIMI 46   phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the ri...
Post a Comment
Read more

Antidepressants Linked to Higher Diabetes Risk in Kids

Pediatric patients who use antidepressants may have an elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, the authors of a new study report. In a retrospective cohort study of more than 119,000 youths 5 to 20 years of age, the risk for incident type 2 diabetes was nearly twice as high among current users of certain types of antidepressants as among former users, Mehmet Burcu, PhD, and colleagues report in an article  published online October 16 in  JAMA Pediatrics . The risk intensified with increasing duration of use, greater cumulative doses, and higher daily doses of these antidepressants. The findings point to a growing need for closer monitoring of these products, including greater balancing of risks and benefits, in the pediatric population, the authors caution. They undertook the study because, despite growing evidence of an association between antidepressant use and an increased risk for type 2 diabetes in adults, similar research in pediatric patients was scarce. "To our know...
Post a Comment
Read more

EHR Work Measures Proposed to Address Burnout

Electronic health record (EHR) vendors should imbed metrics into their systems to measure how EHRs affect clinicians' work, experts write in a commentary  published online  October 10 in the  Annals of Internal Medicine . Yumi T. DiAngi, MD, a fellow in clinical informatics at Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California, and colleagues propose six areas metrics should cover and recommended the creation of a "national council of clinicians" to design measures and create guidelines to address privacy and other issues. "The EHR, which was intended to improve patient care, has had the ironic and unintended consequence of impairing practice efficiency, largely because of poor design, a focus on regulatory reporting, and the burden placed on clinicians by data entry," they write. EHRs have also led to high levels of burnout as physicians' satisfaction in their work has declined, they note. To gain insight into the stresses that have pro...
Post a Comment
Read more