Evaluation of a Training Model to Teach Veterinary Students a Technique for Injecting the Jugular Vein in Horses
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
In this study, a newly-developed model for training veterinary students to inject the jugular vein in horses was evaluated as an additional tool to supplement the current method of teaching. The model was first validated by 19 experienced equine veterinarians, who judged the model to be a realistic and valuable tool for learning the technique. Subsequently, it was assessed using 24 students who were divided randomly into two groups. The injection technique was taught conventionally in a classroom lecture and a live demonstration to both groups, but only group 1 received additional training on the new model. All participants filled out self-assessment questionnaires before and after group 1 received training on the model. Finally, the proficiency of both groups was assessed using an objective structured clinical evaluation (OSCE) on live horses. Students from group 1 showed significantly improved confidence after their additional training on the model and also showed greater confidence when compared to group 2 students. In the OSCE, group 1 had a significantly better score compared to group 2: the median (with inter-quartile range) was 15 (0.7) vs. 11.5 (2.8) points out of 15, respectively. The training model proved to be a useful tool to teach veterinary students how to perform jugular vein injections in horses in a controlled environment, without time limitations or animal welfare concerns. The newly developed training model offers an inexpensive, efficient, animal-sparing way to teach this clinical skill to veterinary students.
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 | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| 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