MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1536834964 · doi:10.1002/uog.12894

<scp>OP20</scp>.05: Challenges to ultrasound training in obstetrics and gynecology: a survey across three Scandinavian countries

2013· article· en· W1536834964 on OpenAlexaff
Martin G. Tolsgaard, M. Rasmussen, Christian Tappert, M. Sundler, Jette Led Sørensen‎, Bent Ottesen, Charlotte Ringsted, Ann Tabor

Bibliographic record

VenueUltrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsThe Wilson Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUltrasoundConfidence intervalObstetrics and gynaecologyRadiologyMedical physicsPregnancyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of ultrasound is traditionally considered safe, although the quality of the examination is highly operator dependent. A more detailed understanding of factors that influence the acquisition of ultrasound skills is therefore needed. The aim of this study was to explore the association between clinical training characteristics and trainees' level of confidence in performing ultrasound scans. An e-survey was used to assess factors of importance to OB/GYN trainees' level of confidence in performing ultrasound scans in three Scandinavian countries (N = 977). Multiple linear regression models were used to explore the effect of length of stay in ultrasound units and clinical experience on trainees' ultrasound confidence. Exploratory factor analysis was then used to identify factors contributing to trainees' ultrasound confidence. Trainees' ultrasound confidence was compared to their expected levels of performance, and finally trainees' satisfaction with training was explored. The response rate was 70.1%. Clinical experience and length of stay in ultrasound units were predictors of trainees' ultrasound confidence (p < 0.001). For trainees to feel ‘confident’ in performing transvaginal- and transabdominal ultrasound scans more than 24 months of clinical experience and 12–24 days of training in ultrasound units were required. Three factors related to ultrasound confidence: Technical aspects, image perception, and integration of scan into patient care. There were significant differences between trainees' level of ultrasound confidence and expected levels of performance, P < 0.001. Trainees' satisfaction with the training was low. Clinical experience and length of stay in ultrasound units were both predictors of ultrasound confidence. Discrepancies between trainees' confidence and expected levels of performances and trainees' low satisfaction with the training raise concern about the adequacy of current ultrasound training programmes.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUltrasound in Obstetrics and GynecologySame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207