MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921081188 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz006.212

A213 VIDEO EDUCATIONAL MATERIAL FOR PATIENTS PREPARING FOR COLONOSCOPY

2019· article· en· W2921081188 on OpenAlexaff
Jesse Garber, Matthew T. Bernstein, John R. Walker, Patrick Faucher, Kristin Reynolds, Harminder Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb and Library Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCLARITYMultimediaColonoscopyOnline videoPoint (geometry)Resource (disambiguation)Video recordingMedicinePsychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preferences for receipt of information vary among individuals, with many patients showing an interest in receiving via video content. Although several educational videos on colonoscopy are available, most of them have not been evaluated systematically. To develop and compare a colonoscopy video educational resource to a previous video on similar subject matter. We developed a new video resource, based on feedback from patients and health care providers and recommended content in literature. A similar content video from the web was identified as the most highly rated by an advisory group. Individuals attending gastroenterology clinics, blinded to the source of videos, were recruited to watch both the New Video and the Similar Video. The order of watching the videos was randomly assigned to allow the assessment of order effects. After watching, participants were asked to rate each video based on: amount of information, clarity, trustworthiness, ease of watching/understandability, familiarity, reassurance, information learned, understanding from the patient’s point of view, appeal, and if they would recommend the video. Participants were then asked which video they preferred and why they preferred it based on clarity, trustworthiness, ease of watching/understandability, and reassurance. Participants were also asked to explain what they liked/disliked about the videos and if they had any suggestions for improving the material. 232 participants viewed both videos. When the New Video was viewed first 64% preferred the New Video and 31% preferred the Similar Video. When the Similar Video was viewed first 78% preferred the New Video and 20% preferred the Similar Video. Of the participants that had not had a previous colonoscopy, 66% preferred the New Video, while 74% of the participants with previous colonoscopy experience preferred the New Video. Multivariable logistic regression analysis also suggested that participants prefer the New Video if they saw it second. Participants rated the New Video as clearer and more trustworthy than the Similar Video. Many participants specified in the open-ended questions they liked New Video better because it was clearer, it was more informative, and was more visually appealing. We have developed and validated a new colonoscopy video educational material, which is freely available on the web. Our study suggests that in information evaluation studies, it is important to consider order effects. We have developed a process to appraise and compare different video information materials against each other. None

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicWeb and Library ServicesFrench-language works237,207