The Creation of an Objective Assessment Tool for Ultrasound-Guided Regional Anesthesia Using the Delphi Method
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 AND OBJECTIVES: The assessment of technical skills in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia is currently subjective and relies largely on observations of the trainer. The objective of this study was to develop a checklist to assess training progress and to detect training gaps in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia using the Delphi method. METHODS: A 30-item checklist was developed and then e-mailed to 18 reviewers for feedback. The checklist was modified on the basis of their feedback. This process of iteration was repeated until no further feedback was received, and a consensus was reached on the final composition of the checklist. A global rating scale (GRS) was introduced as a result of the feedback. RESULTS: Three rounds of feedback were required to reach consensus on the composition of the checklist and the GRS. The final checklist contains 22 items, and the GRS contains 9 categories. CONCLUSIONS: Using the Delphi method, a checklist and GRS were developed. These tools can serve as an objective means of assessing progress in ultrasound technical skills acquisition.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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