Validation of a Low-cost Optic Nerve Sheath Ultrasound Phantom: An Educational Tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To validate an ocular phantom as a realistic educational tool utilizing in vivo and phantom optic nerve sheath (ONS) images obtained by ultrasound. This prospective study enrolled 51 resident physicians from the Denver Health Residency in Emergency Medicine (EM) and 10 ultrasound fellowship-trained EM attending physicians. Participants performed optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) measurements on five in vivo and five phantom ocular ultrasound images and rated the realism of each image on a 5-point Likert scale. Chi-square analysis was performed to evaluate the subjective “realness” of in vivo and phantom images. Sixty-one participants performed ONSD measurements. Mean Likert scale values were 3.43 (95% confidence interval: 3.31–3.55) for in vivo images and 3.41 (95% confidence interval: 3.28–3.54) for phantom images. There was no statistical difference in subjective “realness” between in vivo and phantom ONSD ultrasound images among EM residents. Ultrasound fellowship-trained EM attending physicians aptly differentiated between in vivo ( p < 0.01) and phantom ( p < 0.01) images, as compared with EM residents. Our ocular phantom simulates in vivo posterior ocular anatomy. EM resident physicians found the phantom indistinguishable from in vivo images. Our ONS model provides an inexpensive and realistic educational tool to teach bedside ONSD sonography.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".