OP01.29: The 11–14 week scan course: a comparison of the live vs Internet course
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 11–14 week theoretical scan course is a standardized course for training in first-trimester ultrasound and nuchal translucency (NT) screening. While an Internet version (www.mfmedicine.com) is available leading to the same certificate of completion, the in-person course remains the preferred format. The aim of this study was to 1) compare learner satisfaction with the live versus Internet course, 2) define the strengths and weaknesses of both and 3) determine if the Internet course is meeting the needs of the participants. In this prospective descriptive study, the course evaluations of 150 participants who completed the 11–14 week scan course (April 2003–December 2005) were evaluated (Group 1: live course, n = 75, Group 2: Internet course, n = 75). Satisfaction with speakers, course registration, organization, content, interactive and evaluative components were assessed for each group. The demographics of Groups 1 and 2 were similar (sonographers 57%, radiologists 27%, obstetricians 12%, other 4%). Both groups felt course objectives were met (95% Group 1, 96% Group 2), and most were satisfied with the amount of material covered and its applicability to their clinical setting. The course was rated good to excellent by 98% of Group 1 and 88% of Group 2, and technical difficulties for Group 2 were minimal. Strengths and weaknesses differed between groups, with convenience, accessibility and self-pacing reported as strengths of the Internet version, while quality of the speakers and live demonstrations were highlights of the live course. This study shows that the effectiveness of and learners' satisfaction with the 11–14 week Internet course was not significantly different from the in-person course, and each had advantages and disadvantages. E-learning courses equivalent to high quality live courses may be the solution to continuing medical education for the busy health care professional.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
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".