MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2734656749 · doi:10.5603/ait.a2017.0035

Evaluation of a low-cost, 3D-printed model for bronchoscopy training

2017· article· en· W2734656749 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesiology Intensive Therapy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsCollege of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBronchoscopyMedicineIntensive care3d printedGeneral surgeryMedical physicsSurgeryIntensive care medicineBiomedical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Flexible bronchoscopy is a fundamental procedure in anaesthesia and critical care medicine. Although learning this procedure is a complex task, the use of simulation-based training provides significant advantages, such as enhanced patient safety. Access to bronchoscopy simulators may be limited in low-resource settings. We have developed a low-cost 3D-printed bronchoscopy training model. METHODS: A parametric airway model was obtained from an online medical model repository and fabricated using a low-cost 3D printer. The participating physicians had no prior bronchoscopy experience. Participants received a 30-minute lecture on flexible bronchoscopy and were administered a 15-item pre-test questionnaire on bronchoscopy. Afterwards, participants were instructed to perform a series of predetermined bronchoscopy tasks on the 3D printed simulator on 4 consecutive occasions. The time needed to perform the tasks and the quality of task performance (identification of bronchial anatomy, technique, dexterity, lack of trauma) were recorded. Upon completion of the simulator tests, participants were administered the 15-item questionnaire (post-test) once again. Participant satisfaction data on the perceived usefulness and accuracy of the 3D model were collected. A statistical analysis was performed using the t-test. Data are reported as mean values (± standard deviation). RESULTS: The time needed to complete all tasks was 152.9 ± 71.5 sec on the 1st attempt vs. 98.7 ± 40.3 sec on the 4th attempt (P = 0.03). Likewise, the quality of performance score improved from 8.3 ± 6.7 to 18.2 ± 2.5 (P < 0.0001). The average number of correct answers in the questionnaire was 6.8 ± 1.9 pre-test and 13.3 ± 3.1 post-test (P < 0.0001). Participants reported a high level of satisfaction with the perceived usefulness and accuracy of the model. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a 3D-printed model for bronchoscopy training. This model improved trainee performance and may represent a valid, low-cost bronchoscopy training tool.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.254
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.171 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it