Interactive Internet‐based cases for undergraduate otolaryngology education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility and effectiveness of virtual-patient computer-assisted instruction (CAI) in pre-clerkship undergraduate otolaryngology education. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Second-year medical students at the University of Western Ontario, Canada, were randomized into two groups: group A was given a CAI module and group B was presented with two Internet review articles, both covered specific learning objectives for pediatric stridor. Students completed randomized pre- and post-tests and a questionnaire one week later. RESULTS: Fifty-five students completed the study with 28 in group A and 27 in group B. Mean pretest scores were 59.1% in group A and 59.8% in group B (95% CI = -7.9% to 10.4%). Mean post-test scores were significantly elevated in group A (84.6%, P < 0.001) and group B (74.3%, P = 0.008). Group A had a significantly higher (P = 0.02) mean post-test score than group B (mean difference of 10.2%). Students spent significantly more time (P < 0.001) reading text articles (25.5 minutes) than completing the CAI (9.06 minutes). Forty-one (66%) students completed the survey. Thirty-six (88%) respondents indicated that they preferred CAI to online articles. CONCLUSION: CAI is a feasible, effective, and efficient means of enhancing self-directed learning as supplementation to the pre-clerkship undergraduate otolaryngology curriculum.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".