Use of Animation-Enhanced Video Clips for Teaching Abnormal Breathing Patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to characterize disease of the respiratory tract accurately based on breathing pattern is helpful for the development of differential diagnoses and an efficient diagnostic plan and critical for the stabilization of patients in respiratory distress. Veterinary students do not have sufficient clinical experience to observe personally all types of respiratory diseases and their resultant abnormal breathing patterns. We developed a teaching tool, the animated breathing pattern videotape (ABV), to fill this gap. The ABV is a collection of video clips of small animal patients with normal and abnormal breathing patterns on a conventional videotape of approximately 20 minutes duration. Each video clip is shown for 20 to 40 seconds, followed by the same clip with superimposed animation of rib and diaphragm motion, followed by the initial clip again, without overlying animation. The ABV has since been used in teaching third-year veterinary students, interns, residents, practicing veterinarians, and veterinary technicians. Student evaluations and responses to questionnaires by interns, residents, practicing veterinarians, veterinary technicians, and peer reviewers have been uniformly positive.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".