Research: Does the Addition of Ultrasound Enhance Cardiac Anatomy Learning in Undergraduate Medical Education?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the advent of portable hand-held ultrasound units, the use of point of care ultrasound (POCUS) has become increasingly popular amongst a wide array of medical specialists for both diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Canada-wide surveys demonstrate a desire for increased utilization of POCUS in primary medical education. In this study, we aim to assess the efficacy of an ultrasound based anatomy tutorial and the perspectives of a cohort of first year medical students at Queen’s University. Students were recruited, randomized to pre or post-test analysis, and provided with a supplementary lecture on cardiac anatomy utilizing echocardiography studies. In this study, we were unable to demonstrate a difference between understanding of basic cardiac anatomy between groups. However, we were able to report the opinions and perspectives of a small cohort of first year medical students at Queen’s University, illustrating a desire for increased exposure and training towards cardiac POCUS in primary medical education. Further evidence is required to delineate the true value of these experiences.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".