Assessing the Effectiveness of a Cadaveric Teaching Model for Performing Arthrocentesis with Veterinary Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine if a recently developed cadaveric canine model was an effective tool for teaching arthrocentesis to fourth-year veterinary students. Arthrocentesis is an important diagnostic tool and technical skill that can be difficult to teach in the clinical setting. Eighteen fourth-year veterinary students participated in a within-subjects experiment that evaluated their ability to successfully perform arthrocentesis in the canine model and in an unmodified control cadaver. Students completed an online survey about the experience. Ability to perform the procedure was assessed by monitoring the number of attempts and redirects required to enter the joint and by recording any volume recovered from the arthrocentesis. In both phases of the study, the participants were able to aspirate a measurable volume of fluid from the joints of the model. Participants recorded an increase in confidence with arthrocentesis after using the model in the first phase of the study and unanimously supported inclusion of the exercise in future teaching situations.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".