Cognitive Aids in Medicine Assessment Tool (CMAT): preliminary validation of a novel tool for the assessment of emergency cognitive aids
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
Applying human factors principles to the design of clinical emergency guidelines is important. The UK Civil Aviation Authority uses a Checklist Assessment Tool for evaluating the content and usability of emergency drills before introduction into service on aircraft. We hypothesised that this model could be used to develop a generic medical tool. A three-stage modified Delphi process was used to adapt the above tool for use in designing medical emergency guidelines. The resulting Cognitive aids in Medicine Assessment Tool was then used to score and rank seven published difficult airway guidelines; the scores were used to assess its validity and reliability. Pearson's rank coefficient between these scores and scores from independent assessors was 0.89 (p = 0.007). Internal consistency, as assessed by Cronbach's alpha, was 0.74, 0.96 and 0.72 for the tool's three constituent domains of physical characteristics, content and layout/format, respectively. Inter-rater reliability, as assessed by Cohen's kappa, ranged from 0.33 to 0.72. The adoption of our tool has the potential to improve the usability of medical emergency guidelines.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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