Evidence‐based Approach to Training Pediatric Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Trainers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endoscopy training has evolved in recent years from the traditional model of "learning by doing" to the current skillful application of evidence-based educational principles. Endoscopy training should ideally be provided by individuals with the requisite skills and behaviors to teach endoscopy effectively and efficiently, including an awareness of principles of adult education, best practices in procedural skills education, and appropriate use of beneficial educational strategies such as feedback. The aim of this article is to outline principles that underlie successful endoscopy training and describe the "Preparation-Training-Wrap-up" framework that can be used by pediatric endoscopy trainers to help guide an effective endoscopy training session. Looking to the future, application of content from well-developed "train the trainer" courses to pediatric endoscopy practice would help to improve the quality of endoscopy training and facilitate the development of conscious competences among pediatric endoscopy trainers.
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 | 0.062 | 0.156 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".