Simulation-Based Training of Internal Medicine Residents in Advanced Cardiac Life Support Protocols: A Randomized Trial
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
BACKGROUND: Internal medicine residents must be competent in Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) for board certification. PURPOSE: The purpose was to use a medical simulator to assess baseline proficiency in ACLS and determine the impact of an intervention on skill development. METHOD: This was a randomized trial with wait-list controls. After baseline evaluation in all residents, the intervention group received 4 education sessions using a medical simulator. All residents were then retested. After crossover, the wait-list group received the intervention, and residents were tested again. Performance was assessed by comparison to American Heart Association guidelines for treatment of ACLS conditions with interrater and internal consistency reliability estimates. RESULTS: Performance improved significantly after simulator training. No improvement was detected as a function of clinical experience alone. The educational program was rated highly.
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 | 0.011 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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