Otoscopy simulation training in a classroom setting: A novel approach to teaching otoscopy to medical students
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To determine the effectiveness of using of an otoscopy stimulator to teach medical students the primary principles of otoscopy in large group training sessions and improve their confidence in making otologic diagnoses. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey design. METHODS: In March 2013, the Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery held a large-scale otoscopy simulator teaching session at the MaRS Innovation Center for 92 first and second year University of Toronto medical students. Following the training session, students were provided with an optional electronic, nine-question survey related to their experience with learning otoscopy using the simulators alone, and in comparison to traditional methods of teaching. RESULTS: Thirty-four medical students completed the survey. Ninety-one percent of the respondents indicated that the overall quality of the event was either very good or excellent. A total of 71% of respondents either agreed, or strongly agreed, that the otoscopy simulator training session improved their confidence in diagnosing pathologies of the ear. The majority (70%) of students indicated that the training session had stimulated their interest in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery as a medical specialty. CONCLUSIONS: Organizing large-group otoscopy simulator training sessions is one method whereby students can become familiar with a wide variety of pathologies of the ear and improve both their diagnostic accuracy and their confidence in making otologic diagnoses. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it