An Evaluation of Educational Neurological Eye Movement Disorder Video Posted on Internet Video Sharing Sites: Comment
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We found the article by Hickman (1) both enlightening and frightening. To find that less than one-quarter of the eye movement videos posted on internet video sharing websites contained excellent educational value is disturbing. Although there is some reassurance in the statistically significant finding that a greater number of “likes” was found on higher-quality videos, this is not a practical or reliable screening technique for the clinician working through a busy clinic. As pointed out by Hossain et al (2), in the United States, we are experiencing a steady decline in ophthalmic education in medical schools (3). Although many of us in academic medicine are working to re-engage in the curriculum within our respective medical schools, there is still a need for improving the access and availability of peer-reviewed online ophthalmic educational materials. For this reason, we created an open access website through the Moran Eye Center at the University of Utah with a dedicated outline for medical students (http://morancore.utah.edu). This outline is based on an Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology (AUPO) Medical Education Task Force editorial that identified the core ophthalmologic knowledge and skills expected of all United States medical school graduates (4). As ophthalmologists, we have a responsibility to take ownership over the education of our nonophthalmologic colleagues. They serve on the frontline screening for eye disease and making appropriate and timely referrals. So often the educational materials produced by ophthalmologists are targeted toward only those who have completed ophthalmic training, and the materials can be difficult to understand for nonophthalmologists. The articles in the medical student outline in the Moran CORE (clinical ophthalmology resource for education) take a novel approach. First, they have gone through a peer review and are posted through a reputable institution. Second, these articles have been written by medical students who have a unique insight into identifying what is of greatest benefit to their classmates while making it conceptually accessible. Although these articles are edited and reviewed by staff, we have been impressed how medical students explain topics in clear terms with understandable concepts. We know that both clinicians and patients will increasingly use the internet for self-directed learning, diagnosis, and management of eye diseases. It is hoped that the resource we are providing will give users the confidence and peace of mind that they are accessing accurate and reliable information. We welcome any feedback.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,056 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,012 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».