MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789522979 · doi:10.1002/jum.14571

Point‐of‐Care Ultrasound in Undergraduate Urology Education: A Prospective Control‐Intervention Study

2018· article· en· W2789522979 on OpenAlexaffabout
Paul Olszynski, Jordan Anderson, Krista Trinder, Trustin Domes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConcordanceCohortPoint of care ultrasoundPoint of careUrologyIntervention (counseling)ConfusionUrinary systemPoint-of-care testingProspective cohort studyMedical educationInternal medicineNursingUltrasoundRadiologyPathologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The effect of point-of-care ultrasound (US) training on clinical reasoning in undergraduate medical education remains largely unknown, with concerns arising about possible confusion among learners when such clinical tools are introduced too early. We studied the effect of a urology point-of-care US module on the performance of questions designed to assess clinical reasoning in urinary tract obstruction and voiding dysfunction. METHODS: All second-year medical students at the University of Saskatchewan (Regina [n = 36] and Saskatoon [n = 61]) were enrolled in the study. Each cohort participated in the urology point-of-care US module concurrently with its Foundations in the Kidney and Urinary Tract course. The Regina cohort completed the point-of-care US module 1 week before the Saskatoon cohort, thus allowing for a control-intervention comparison of script concordance question scores to evaluate the effect that the urology point-of-care US module had on clinical reasoning skills. Secondary outcomes included program evaluation metrics, such as overall course performance, urology point-of-care US objective structured clinical examination performance, and student course evaluation data. RESULTS: The introduction of the urology point-of-care US module was not associated with a deterioration in scores on script concordance questions. There were no statistically significant differences between the Regina and Saskatoon students in their responses to the script concordance questions. There were statistically significant increases in student self-reported achievement of learning objectives, with the effect size being medium to large (Cohen d, 0.5-0.8). CONCLUSIONS: Point-of-care US training complements standard undergraduate classroom teaching of urology. Students effectively learned the skills to apply point-of-care US in their assessment of patients, and this process did not interfere with achieving the course objectives.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.353 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Ultrasound in MedicineSame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207