Anesthesia Residents' Preference for Learning Interscalene Brachial Plexus Block (ISBPB): Traditional Winnie's Technique vs. Ultrasound-Guided Technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a recent shift from traditional nerve stimulation (NS) to ultrasound-guided (UG) techniques in regional anesthesia (RA). This shift prompted educators to readdress the best way to teach these two modalities. Development of a more structured curriculum requires an understanding of student preferences and perceptions. To help in structuring the teaching curriculum of RA, we examined residents' preferences to the methods of instruction (NS Vs. UG techniques). Novice residents (n=12) were enrolled in this parallel crossover trial. Two groups of 6 residents received a didactic lecture on NS or UG techniques. The groups then crossed over to view the other lecture. After they observed a demo of ISBPB on two patients using NS and US. The residents completed a questionnaire regarding their impression of each technique and the learning experience. UG technique was perceived to be safer and to have more educational value than NS. However, residents felt both techniques should be mandatory in the teaching curriculum.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".