Evaluation of the Effect of a Computerized Training Simulator (ANAKIN) on the Retention of Neonatal Resuscitation Skills
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: Neonatal resuscitation knowledge and skills deteriorate after initial training. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a computerized simulator system (ANAKIN) as a means for boosting neonatal resuscitation knowledge, skills, and self-reported confidence beliefs. METHOD: A randomized pretest-posttest control group study design involving 60 3rd-year medical students. At a 4-month, post-training interval, experimental group was exposed to ANAKIN and control group to a training video. Both groups assessed at an 8-month, post-neonatal resuscitation training interval. RESULTS: Knowledge level for both groups decreased significantly at 4- and 8-month, post-training intervals despite booster exposure. Confidence level for both study groups increased significantly following booster exposure. However, no significant difference between study group skill levels at 8 months and no significant relation between neonatal resuscitation knowledge, confidence, or skills. CONCLUSION: Computerized simulator system was as effective as video for maintaining resuscitation skills of medical students, and students were very satisfied with experience of remote computer simulation training.
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 | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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