Integrating Medical Simulation Into the Physician Assistant Physiology Curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Medical simulation has recently been used in medical education, and evidence indicates that it is a valuable tool for teaching and evaluation. Very few studies have evaluated the integration of medical simulation in medical physiology education, particularly in PA programs. This study was designed to assess the value of integrating medical simulation into the PA physiology curriculum. METHODS: Seventy-five students from the PA program at Central Michigan University participated in this study. Mannequin-based simulation was used to simulate a patient with hemorrhagic shock and congestive heart failure to demonstrate the Frank-Starling force and cardiac function curve. Before and after the medical simulation, students completed a questionnaire as a self-assessment. A knowledge test was also delivered after the simulation. RESULTS: Our study demonstrated a significant improvement in student confidence in understanding congestive heart failure, hemorrhagic shock, and the Frank-Starling curve after the simulation. CONCLUSIONS: Medical simulation may be an effective way to enhance basic science learning experiences for students and an ideal supplement to traditional, lecture-based teaching in PA education.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".