A231 ENDOSCOPY TRAINEES ARE ABLE TO ACCURATELY SELF-ASSESS PROCEDURAL SKILLS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) learn at differing rates and may not be able to accurately self-assess their endoscopic skills. A transition to competence-based medical education (CBME) in Canada has brought direct evaluation to the forefront. The Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) is a tool used by physicians to assess trainee skill level in GIE procedures, including: colonoscopies (COL), flexible sigmoidoscopies (SIG), and gastroscopies (GASTRO). To validate the reliability of GI resident self-assessment in endoscopy, the Ottawa Surgical Competency Operating Room Evaluation (O-SCORE) is used for CBME assessment. To evaluate the self-assessment skills of trainees in endoscopy as compared to staff assessment using the O-SCORE for DOPS evaluation of GI procedures. Staff and trainees completed an assessment evaluating the skill level demonstrated by the trainee in GIE. Difficulty was evaluated on a 3-level scale: easy, moderate, complicated. Procedural skills were evaluated using a 5-level O-SCORE: (1) the staff had to do, (2) the staff had to talk the trainee through, (3) the staff had to prompt the trainee from time to time, (4) the staff needed to be in the room just in case, (5) the staff did not need to be there. Numerical data are presented as a mean and compared using Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test. Significance is evaluated at α=0.05. There were 10 trainees (33.3% female) and 16 staff recruited. Data was collected for 43 COLs/SIGs and 42 GASTROs. There were no significant differences in the mean trainee scores compared to the staff in any of the assessments, except for evaluating difficulty of COLs/SIGs; in which, staff rated them more difficult (2.05) than trainee (1.79) scores (p=0.008). Table 1 shows a summary of the results for each trainee. As a whole, endoscopy trainees are able to accurately self-assess procedural skills in endoscopy. However, individual ability to self-evaluate varies amongst trainees. Table 1. A summary of evaluations for each trainee, including net over-/under-estimation and mean objective scores (as determined by staff). 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.015 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".