Suture workshops: An effective tool for teaching medical students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Suturing is an integral part of medical training but exposure can be limited. Objectives Quality assessment of the effectiveness of 2nd year medical student suture workshop. Medical students underwent a training workshop during their clerkship introduction. A questionnaire was then created to assess the perceived usefulness of such a workshop Methods The members of the 2012 med 2 class were surveyed following completion of the suture workshop. The suture workshop consisted of both didactic as well as practical sessions. The surveys contained multiple choice and open ended questions. Results The surveys had a 90% response rate. Over 75% of clerks who attended the workshop had some prior suture experience. All of the clinical clerks reported the workshop to be useful. 84% of clerks described their level of comfort in suturing prior to the workshop as less than fair. Approximately 38% of clerks thought the didactic session was useful. 86% of clerks found the practice suture boards used during the workshop to be very useful. . All clerks found the practical portion of the workshop useful. Following the workshop more than 91% of clerks described their comfort level, with any type of suturing, as greater than fair. 100% of clerks stated they would like a refresher workshop. Conclusions Medical students determine a subjective improvement in suture skills following suture workshops. Clinical clerks appear to prefer a practical approach to suture instruction as compared with didactic sessions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".