Profiling strugglers in a graduate-entry medicine course at Nottingham: a retrospective case study

Background 10-15% of students struggle at some point in their medicine course. Risk factors include weaker academic qualifications, male gender, mental illness, UK ethnic minority status, and poor study skills. Recent research on an undergraduate medicine course provided a toolkit to aid early identification of students likely to struggle, who can be targeted by established support and study interventions. The present study sought to extend this work by investigating the number and characteristics of strugglers on a graduate-entry medicine (GEM) programme. Methods A retrospective study of four GEM entry cohorts (2003–6) was carried out. All students who had demonstrated unsatisfactory progress or left prematurely were included. Any information about academic, administrative, personal, or social difficulties, were extracted from their course progress files into a customised database and examined. Results 362 students were admitted to the course, and 53 (14.6%) were identified for the study, of whom 15 (4.1%) did not complete the course. Students in the study group differed from the others in having a higher proportion of 2ii first degrees, and scoring less well on GAMSAT, an aptitude test used for admission. Within the study group, it proved possible to categorise students into the same groups previously reported (struggler throughout, pre-clinical struggler, clinical struggler, health-related struggler, borderline struggler) and to identify the majority using a number of flags for early difficulties. These flags included: missed attendance, unsatisfactory attitude or behaviour, health problems, social/family problems, failure to complete immunity status checks, and attendance at academic progress committee. Conclusions Problems encountered in a graduate-entry medicine course were comparable to those reported in a corresponding undergraduate programme. A toolkit of academic and non-academic flags of difficulty can be used for early identification of many who will struggle, and could be used to target appropriate support and interventions

A genome-wide association study identifies new susceptibility loci for esophageal adenocarcinoma and Barrett's esophagus.

Esophageal adenocarcinoma is a cancer with rising incidence and poor survival. Most such cancers arise in a specialized intestinal metaplastic epithelium, which is diagnostic of Barrett's esophagus. In a genome-wide association study, we compared esophageal adenocarcinoma cases (n = 2,390) and individuals with precancerous Barrett's esophagus (n = 3,175) with 10,120 controls in 2 phases. For the combined case group, we identified three new associations. The first is at 19p13 (rs10419226: P = 3.6 × 10(-10)) in CRTC1 (encoding CREB-regulated transcription coactivator), whose aberrant activation has been associated with oncogenic activity. A second is at 9q22 (rs11789015: P = 1.0 × 10(-9)) in BARX1, which encodes a transcription factor important in esophageal specification. A third is at 3p14 (rs2687201: P = 5.5 × 10(-9)) near the transcription factor FOXP1, which regulates esophageal development. We also refine a previously reported association with Barrett's esophagus near the putative tumor suppressor gene FOXF1 at 16q24 and extend our findings to now include esophageal adenocarcinoma

Publisher Correction: Sex-dimorphic genetic effects and novel loci for fasting glucose and insulin variability.

Correction to: Nature Communications https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19366-9, published online 5 January 2021. The original version of this Article contained an error in Fig. 2, in which panels a and b were inadvertently swapped. This has now been corrected in the PDF and HTML versions of the Article

Publisher Correction: Sex-dimorphic genetic effects and novel loci for fasting glucose and insulin variability.

Correction to: Nature Communications https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19366-9, published online 5 January 2021. The original version of this Article contained an error in Fig. 2, in which panels a and b were inadvertently swapped. This has now been corrected in the PDF and HTML versions of the Article