MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885596850 · doi:10.1186/s41077-018-0075-4

A novel simulation competition format as an effective instructional tool in post-graduate medical education

2018· article· en· W2885596850 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

VenueAdvances in Simulation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical educationSemantic differentialSummative assessmentPerceptionPsychologyCompetition (biology)Test (biology)MedicineFormative assessmentMathematics educationSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Medical simulation competitions are a growing reality. This study aims at exploring if a novel format of simulation competition (SIMCUP) can be an effective educational format in post-graduate education. DESIGN: We designed a 2-day event that included scientific educational lectures, an orientation to the competition, familiarization with the simulation lab, and competition time. Day 1 was devoted to preliminary rounds and was structured using an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE)-like system. On day 2, the first four teams advanced to semi-finals and then to finals, which were held using a classical SimWars style. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: A total of 14 four-participant teams participated in the event over two editions (Ed.1 in 2015 and Ed.2 in 2016). INTERVENTIONS: External referees evaluated both technical and non-technical skills for each simulated scenario. Each participant was also administered pre- and post-test questionnaires covering self-perception about the confidence in managing simulated clinical cases, educational effectiveness, satisfaction with the simulation experience, and previous simulation training. MAIN RESULTS: Overall participants found SIMCUP a useful learning experience, rating it 10 [9, 10] and 10 [7.75-10] out of 10 for Ed.1 and Ed.2, respectively. Participants reported, using a 10-point semantic differential scale ranging from "1 - strongly disagree." to "10 - strongly agree," finding both days to be educationally effective: day 1 was rated 9 [7-10] and 9 [8-10] as day 2 was rated 8 [7-10] and 8 [7-10] for Ed. 1 and Ed. 2, respectively.Participants' self-perception regarding the confidence of managing the specific scenarios significantly improved immediately after the event as measured by pre- and post-questionnaires for all stations and during both editions. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that simulation competition can serve as an effective instructional format in residency training.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.403 · 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