Construct validity of a novel assessment tool for ultrasound‐guided axillary brachial plexus block
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the construct validity and reliability of a novel metrics-based assessment tool, previously developed for ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus block. Five expert and eight novice anaesthetists performed a total of 18 ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus blocks on the same number of patients. A trained investigator video-taped procedures according to a pre-defined protocol. Two trained consultant anaesthetists independently scored the videos using the assessment tool. Compared with novices, experts completed more steps (mean 41.0 vs. 33.1, p = 0.001), had fewer procedural errors (2.8 vs. 7.9, p < 0.0001), had fewer critical errors (0.8 vs. 1.3, p = 0.030), and fewer total errors (3.5 vs. 9.1, p < 0.0001). The mean inter-rater reliability for scoring of experts' performance was 0.91, for novices' performance was 0.84, and for all performance combined (n = 18) was 0.88. This assessment tool is valid, and discriminates reliably between expert and novice performance for placement of ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus blocks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".