MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120860600

A randomized pilot validation of educational measures in teaching shoulder arthroscopy to surgical residents.

2007· article· en· W2120860600 on OpenAlexaffabout
Peter J. M. Ceponis, Denise Chan, Richard S. Boorman, Carol Hutchison, Nicholas G. Mohtadi

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOrthopedic surgeryArthroscopyRotator cuffShoulder surgeryShouldersRotator cuff injurySurgeryPhysical therapy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Injuries to the shoulder joint commonly require the attention of an orthopedic surgeon. Shoulder arthroscopy plays an increasingly important role in the diagnosis and repair of shoulder pathology; however, the most effective manner in which to teach orthopedic residents fundamental knowledge of diagnostic shoulder arthroscopy before entering the operating room is unclear. We aimed to compare the existing cadaver-based teaching of diagnostic shoulder arthroscopy knowledge with a method that combines model- and video-based teaching to orthopedic surgery residents in a randomized pilot trial. METHODS: A composite (model/video teaching) method was designed, using prepared teaching videos and the commercially available ALEX shoulder arthroscopy model. First- and second-year orthopedic surgery residents from the University of Calgary were consented, surveyed for their arthroscopy experience and randomized to either cadaver or composite teaching. Subjects wrote a pretest before their teaching session and a posttest afterwards to assess their knowledge of diagnostic arthroscopy. The tests were multiple choice, containing text and pictorial-based questions. The posttest was modified to minimize recall bias. Subjects were also surveyed for their comments regarding the teaching sessions. RESULTS: Nine of 10 subjects increased their test scores after the teaching sessions, with 4 of 5 in the cadaver-based and 5 of 5 in the composite groups. There were no differences between the teaching groups on their mean pre- or posttest scores. The composite group, but not the cadaver-based group, had a statistically significant increase in posttest scores. When the text- and pictorial-based question sections were analyzed separately, both groups significantly improved their mean text-based score, whereas only the composite group increased their mean pictorial-based questions score. Surveying the residents elicited positive comments regarding both manners of teaching. CONCLUSION: This pilot trial suggests that a composite teaching curriculum is at least as effective as a cadaver-based environment for teaching orthopedic surgery residents fundamental knowledge of diagnostic shoulder arthroscopy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.364
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207