MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903430593 · doi:10.2147/amep.s181874

An effective and novel method for teaching applied facial anatomy and related procedural skills to esthetic physicians

2018· article· en· W2903430593 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Narendra Kumar, Eqram Rahman, Philip J. Adds

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Medical Education and Practice · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMonash UniversityMcGill University
KeywordsLikert scalePsychomotor learningIntraclass correlationMedical educationMedicineTeaching methodPsychologyCognitionMedical physicsMathematics educationClinical psychologyPsychometricsDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: An understanding of facial anatomy is crucial for the safe practice of nonsurgical facial esthetic procedures. Contextual learning, aided with instructional design, enhances the trainees' overall learning experience and retention, and makes a positive impact on the performance of procedural skills. The present study aimed to develop a teaching approach based on Bloom's taxonomy involving cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning domains. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The practicability of Assess & Aware, Demonstrate, Decode, Act & Accomplish, Perform, Teach & Test (ADDAPT), a new approach to teaching applied facial anatomy and procedural skills to esthetic physicians in a large group setting, was evaluated in this study. Study participants were from two cohorts (n=124) who underwent 2 days of applied anatomy training in Singapore. Pre- and post-course multiple choice questions and objective structured practical examination were conducted to measure the effectiveness and applicability of the teaching model. Expert raters, table demonstrators, and participants rated the steps involved in the ADDAPT model on an 11-point Likert scale. RESULTS: <0.001). Inter-rater agreement, expressed as the intraclass correlation coefficient, was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.62-0.98) for expert raters and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.78-0.97) for table demonstrators, which reflects the real strength of sound educational practice. The trainees well accepted the model and found the sessions intellectually stimulating. Trainees' feedback stated that the learning experience was enhanced by the repeated observation and constructive feedback provided by the tutors. CONCLUSION: The ADDAPT model is practical to instruct a large group of trainees in clinical anatomy and procedural skill training. This approach to instructional design may be feasible and transferable to other areas of psychomotor skill training in medical education.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.365 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Medical Education and PracticeSame topicAnatomy and Medical TechnologyFrench-language works237,207