Effect of videotape feedback on anaesthetists' performance while managing simulated anaesthetic crises: a multicentre study
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
The aim of this study was to examine the performance of anaesthetists while managing simulated anaesthetic crises and to see whether their performance was improved by reviewing their own performances recorded on videotape. Thirty-two subjects from four hospitals were allocated randomly to one of two groups, with each subject completing five simulations in a single session. Individuals in the first group completed five simulations with only a short discussion between each simulation. Those in the second group were allowed to review their own performance on videotape between each of the simulations. Performance was measured by both 'time to solve the problem' and mental workload, using anaesthetic chart error as a secondary task. Those trainees exposed to videotape feedback had a shorter median 'time to solve' and a smaller decrease in chart error when compared to those not exposed to video feedback. However, the differences were not statistically significant, confirming the difficulties encountered by other groups in designing valid tests of the performance of anaesthetists.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it