Distributed burst firing mediates optimized cortical encoding of natural self-motion.

Medical theses are formal research documents produced as part of training in the health sciences. Although they are not mandatory in all medical education systems, in several settings, including countries in Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Africa, they remain part of training at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels, including residency. Where required, they are a prerequisite for graduation [–]. Their preparation involves the integration of methodological, argumentative, and scientific writing skills, and they often represent one of the earliest structured forms through which research is documented and communicated [,,,]. Despite their use in these contexts, medical theses are reported inconsistently across institutions, programs, and regions [,,]. This heterogeneity affects the clarity, structure, and evaluability of these documents and may influence how research is communicated in later academic and professional settings. The absence of standardized reporting criteria coexists with longstanding concerns regarding the quality, use, and dissemination of theses [,]. Without explicit guidance on what information should be reported and how it should be organized, medical theses may differ substantially in structure, content, and methodological detail, even when addressing the same study design. This variability weakens the consistency of the final document and may contribute to the low proportion of theses that are subsequently converted into scientific publications [,,]. In this context, available evidence, including medical student master’s theses, shows marked heterogeneity in thesis-to-publication rates, ranging from 0.8% to 33% [,]. Deficiencies in the methodological reporting of medical theses have been documented across institutional settings, and thesis supervisors have identified structural and methodological problems as primary factors in the failure of thesis projects [,]. These findings suggest that the absence of explicit reporting criteria has measurable consequences for the consistency and evaluability of these documents. In response to this gap, many institutions have developed internal guidance for thesis preparation. However, these documents are usually limited in scope and tend to focus on formal presentation requirements, such as cover-page format, citation style, or length, rather than on minimum standards for methodological reporting. This contrasts with the progress achieved in other areas of medical research, where reporting guidelines have been developed for multiple study designs, mainly through the EQUATOR Network []. These initiatives have established minimum standards for transparency, reproducibility, and completeness in scientific reporting, thereby supporting critical appraisal and use in evidence synthesis [–]. These principles are also relevant to medical theses, where clear reporting of the study rationale, methods, results, and ethical considerations is essential for adequate academic evaluation and scientific communication [,]. Extending these standards to medical theses requires recognition that academic work produced during training also demands explicit and complete reporting.