Clinical Impact of Epidural Anesthesia Simulation on Short- and Long-term Learning Curve
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Epidural anesthesia is a technically challenging regional anesthetic technique that can be difficult to teach to novices. Epidural simulators are now available to allow realistic training within a safe and controlled environment before attempting the procedure on patients. Potentially, this may improve skill acquisition by novice residents. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of a high-fidelity epidural anesthesia simulator on residents' ability to perform their first labor epidurals and on their learning curve compared with a group having training with a low-fidelity model. METHODS: Second-year anesthesia residents were recruited. Subjects were randomized into 2 groups and practiced epidural needle insertion on a high-fidelity epidural simulator or on a low-fidelity model. Subjects were then repeatedly videotaped performing epidural anesthesia over a 6-month period. Two blinded examiners graded each session, using a previously validated Global Rating Scale and Manual Skill Checklist to judge the skill level. RESULTS: Seventy-two sessions performed by 24 residents were recorded. Manual Skill Checklist and Global Rating Scale total scores were compared across the 2 study groups at baseline (first epidural), middle (31-90 epidurals) and late (>90 epidurals) time points using independent-samples t tests. No significant differences in scores were detected at either one of these time points. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that a simple model can be as useful for learning how to place an epidural catheter as an expensive anatomically correct simulator. New and more technologically advanced simulators should be compared against lower fidelity models to establish their utility and cost-effectiveness.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".