MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Procedures Can Be Learned on the Web: A Randomized Study of Ultrasound‐guided Vascular Access Training

2008· article· en· W2009333565 on OpenAlexaff
Jordan Chenkin, Shirley Lee, Thien Huynh, Glen Bandiera

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Emergency Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalMount Sinai HospitalThe Wilson CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTest (biology)Randomized controlled trialWeb applicationObjective structured clinical examinationConfidence intervalSignificant differenceMedical educationSurgeryWorld Wide WebInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Web-based learning has several potential advantages over lectures, such as anytime-anywhere access, rich multimedia, and nonlinear navigation. While known to be an effective method for learning facts, few studies have examined the effectiveness of Web-based formats for learning procedural skills. The authors sought to determine whether a Web-based tutorial is at least as effective as a didactic lecture for learning ultrasound-guided vascular access (UGVA). METHODS: Participating staff emergency physicians (EPs) and junior emergency medicine (EM) residents with no UGVA experience completed a precourse test and were randomized to either a Web-based or a didactic group. The Web-based group was instructed to use an online tutorial and the didactic group attended a lecture. Participants then practiced on simulators and live models without any further instruction. Following a rest period, participants completed a four-station objective structured clinical examination (OSCE), a written examination, and a postcourse questionnaire. Examination results were compared using a noninferiority data analysis with a 10% margin of difference. RESULTS: Twenty-one residents and EPs participated in the study. There were no significant differences in mean OSCE scores (absolute difference = -2.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -9.3% to 3.8%) or written test scores (absolute difference = -1.4%; 95% CI = -7.8% to 5.0%) between the Web group and the didactic group. Both groups demonstrated similar improvements in written test scores (26.1% vs. 25.8%; p = 0.95). Ninety-one percent (10/11) of the Web group and 80% (8/10) of the didactic group participants found the teaching format to be effective (p = 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: Our Web-based tutorial was at least as effective as a traditional didactic lecture for teaching the knowledge and skills essential for UGVA. Participants expressed high satisfaction with this teaching technology. Web-based teaching may be a useful alternative to didactic teaching for learning procedural skills.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.230
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations123
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic Emergency MedicineSame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207