MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946760550 · doi:10.24908/pocus.v2i1.13271

Research: Does the Addition of Ultrasound Enhance Cardiac Anatomy Learning in Undergraduate Medical Education?

2017· article· en· W2946760550 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Joshua Durbin, Amer M. Johri, Anthony Sanfilippo

Bibliographic record

VenuePOCUS Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiac UltrasoundPoint of care ultrasoundMedicinePsychological interventionCohortMedical educationTest (biology)UltrasoundMedical physicsRadiologyInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.072
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.072
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.409 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePOCUS JournalSame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207