MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1526074065 · doi:10.1002/uog.13211

Which factors are associated with trainees' confidence in performing obstetric and gynecological ultrasound examinations?

2013· review· en· W1526074065 on OpenAlex
Martin G. Tolsgaard, Maria Rasmussen, Christian Tappert, M. Sundler, Jette Led Sørensen‎, Bent Ottesen, Charlotte Ringsted, Ann Tabor

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueUltrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsThe Wilson CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidence intervalMedicineUltrasoundUltrasonographyCross-sectional studyRadiologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between clinical training characteristics and trainees' level of confidence in performing ultrasound scans independently. METHODS: A cross-sectional e-survey was distributed to members of the national societies of junior obstetricians/gynecologists in Denmark, Sweden and Norway (n = 973). Multiple linear regression models were used to explore the effect that amount of time spent in specialized ultrasound units and clinical experience had on trainees' confidence in performing ultrasonography independently. Exploratory factor analysis was used to identify factors that contributed to trainees' confidence in performing ultrasonography. Trainees' ultrasound confidence was finally compared with their expected levels of performance. RESULTS: Of the 682 respondents (response rate 70.1%), 621 met the inclusion criteria. Clinical experience and time spent in specialized ultrasound units were predictors of trainees' confidence in performing ultrasonography independently (P < 0.001). Trainees required more than 24 months of clinical experience and 12-24 days of training in specialized ultrasound units in order to feel confident about performing transvaginal and transabdominal ultrasound scans independently. Three factors were related to ultrasound confidence: technical aspects, image perception and integration of scan into patient care. There were significant differences between trainees' level of confidence and their expected levels of performance (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical experience and time spent in specialized ultrasound units were predictors of trainees' confidence in performing ultrasonography independently. Discrepancies between trainees' confidence and their expected levels of performance raised concerns about the adequacy of current ultrasound training programs.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.326
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.419
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.326
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it