Assessment of Lumbar Puncture Skill in Experts and Nonexperts Using Checklists and Quantitative Tracking of Needle Trajectories: Implications for Competency-Based Medical Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: CONSTRUCT: With the current shift toward competency-based education, rigorous assessment tools are needed for procedurally based tasks. BACKGROUND: Multiple tools exist to evaluate procedural skills, each with specific weaknesses. APPROACH: We sought to determine if quantitative needle tracking could be used as a measure of lumbar puncture (LP) performance and added discriminatory value to a dichotomous checklist. Thirty-two medical students were divided into 2 groups. One group was asked to practice an LP once (single practice [SP]) and the other 5 times (multiple practice [MP]). Experts (attending ER physicians, senior ER residents, and a junior anesthesia resident) were used as comparators. Medical students were assessed again at 1 month to assess skill retention. Groups were assessed performing an LP with an electromagnetic tracking device that allows the needle's 3-dimensional movements to be captured and analyzed, and a dichotomous checklist. RESULTS: Quantitative needle metrics as assessed by electromagnetic tracking showed a decreasing trend in needle movement distance with practice and with experience. The SP group made significantly more checklist mistakes initially as compared to the MP group (1.2 vs. 0.3, p <.05). At 1 month, there was a significant increase in both groups' mistakes (SP 3.4 vs. MP 1.3, p =.01). No correlation existed between individuals' needle motion and checklist mistakes. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that quantitative needle tracking identifies students who struggle with needle insertion but are successful at completing the dichotomous checklist.
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 | 0.009 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".