{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013838310269482883, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00873998543335761, 'mean_word_length': 5.133928571428571, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Making science clinically relevant.

Clinical practice requires a sound foundation in the basic and clinical sciences. However, the traditional dental curriculum often separates the two in a variety of ways that reduce their integration. The basic sciences are commonly taught in the first two years by a basic science faculty with inconsistent integration with clinical dental practice. The clinical sciences are often taught by faculty who may not be actively involved in research-related activities. The curriculum is dense and is difficult to modify to adapt to evolving scientific discovery and application. The 1995 IOM report focuses much of its attention on these issues. The Harvard School of Dental Medicine has dramatically modified its curriculum twice in the recent past to more closely integrate the basic and clinical sciences and to promote the clinical relevance of the basic sciences. The class entering in 1980 began a five-year D.M.D. program that was designed to decompress the curriculum and increase experiences that enhance scientific and clinical integration. The class entering in 1994 initiated a four-year program that uses a problem-based learning design throughout the entire curriculum. Strategies for integrating the clinical and the basic sciences along with research training and experience were developed and implemented in both programs.