The quality of YouTube videos on endoscopic third ventriculostomy and endoscopic third ventriculostomy with choroid plexus cauterization procedures available to families of patients with pediatric hydrocephalus
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: YouTube has become an important information source for pediatric neurosurgical patients and their families. The goal of this study was to determine whether the informative quality of videos of endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) and endoscopic third ventriculostomy with choroid plexus cauterization (ETV + CPC) is associated with metrics of popularity. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used comprehensive search terms to identify videos pertaining to ETV and ETV + CPC presented on the first 3 pages of search results on YouTube. Two pediatric neurosurgeons, 1 neurosurgery resident, and 2 patient families independently reviewed the selected videos. Videos were assessed for overall informational quality by using a validated 5-point Global Quality Score (GQS) and compared to online metrics of popularity and engagement such as views, likes, likes/views ratio, comments/views ratio, and likes/dislikes ratio. Weighted kappa scores were used to measure agreement between video reviewers. RESULTS: A total of 58 videos (47 on ETV, 7 on ETV + CPC, 4 on both) of 120 videos assessed met the inclusion criteria. Video styles included "technical" (62%), "lecture" (24%), "patient testimonial" (4%), and "other" (10%). In terms of GQS, substantial agreement was seen between surgeons (kappa 0.67 [95% CI 0.55, 0.80]) and excellent agreement was found between each surgeon and the neurosurgical resident (0.77 [95% CI 0.66, 0.88] and 0.89 [95% CI 0.82, 0.97]). Only fair to moderate agreement was seen between professionals and patient families, with weighted kappa scores ranging from 0.07 to 0.56. Academic lectures were more likely to be rated good or excellent (64% vs 0%, p < 0.001) versus surgical procedure and testimonial video types. There were significant associations between a better GQS and more likes (p = 0.01), views (p = 0.02), and the likes/dislikes ratio (p = 0.016). The likes/views ratio (p = 0.31) and comments/views ratio (p = 0.35) were not associated with GQS. The number of likes (p = 0.02), views (p = 0.03), and the likes/dislikes ratio (p = 0.015) were significantly associated with video style (highest for lecture-style videos). CONCLUSIONS: Medical professionals tended to agree when assessing the overall quality of YouTube videos, but this agreement was not as strongly seen when compared to parental ratings. The online metrics of likes, views, and likes/dislikes ratio appear to predict quality. Neurosurgeons seeking to increase their online footprint via YouTube would be well advised to focus more on the academic lecture style because these were universally better rated.
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 | 0,003 | 0,037 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
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 ».