MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1592467020 · doi:10.1136/jamia.2001.0080111

Educational Instruction on a Hospital Information System for Medical Students During Their Surgical Rotations

2001· article· en· W1592467020 on OpenAlexaffabout
R. Patterson, P. H. Harasym

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTest (biology)MedicineChartOrder entryEducational programMedical educationMedical emergencyMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefit, for medical students on their surgical rotations, of real-time educational instruction during order entry on a hospital information system. DESIGN: Prospective controlled trial. INTERVENTION: Access to educational information during computerized order entry. SUBJECTS: Medical students in their final year at the University of Calgary. MAIN OUTCOMES: Attainment of the surgery rotation educational objectives, as measured by performance on a multiple-choice examination. METHODS: Before they began their surgical rotations, students at two hospitals took a multiple-choice examination to measure their knowledge of surgery. One hospital had an information system with computerized order entry; students at this hospital had access, while composing orders, to educational material on the system. The other hospital did not have an information system; students there wrote orders on a paper chart. At the end of the rotation, all students took another multiple-choice examination. RESULTS: Of 50 eligible students, 45 agreed to participate in the project, 21 in the treatment group and 24 in the control group. Pre-rotation scores were similar for the two groups (43 percent in the treatment group and 40 percent in the control group; SD, 10 percent). Post-rotation scores were identical for the two groups (65 percent in the treatment group and 65 percent in the control group; SD, 12 percent). A t-test analysis revealed no significant difference in performance on the examinations between the two groups. CONCLUSION: This study did not demonstrate a learning advantage for medical students who have access to educational material on a hospital information system.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations19
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Medical Informatics AssociationSame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207