Pedagogical strategies in teaching invasive prenatal procedures: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Invasive prenatal procedures (IPP) are core competencies in a Maternal-Fetal Medicine (MFM) fellowship training programme yet no standardised competency-based curriculum exists. This scoping review aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the existing educational strategies for amniocentesis, chorionic villus sampling, fetal blood sampling and intrauterine blood transfusion. The objective is also to describe current gaps in the literature regarding evidence-based standards for training and assessment in IPP. Finally, we hope to encourage medical educators who are seeking to develop curricula based on competence by design to foster adaptive expertise through incorporating contextual variations in their teaching thus helping future MFM specialists to handle challenges and respond creatively to changing clinical circumstances and environmental variations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using the five-stage framework of Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology as a guide, we will perform a systematic search in the Medline, Embase and Cochrane library databases to identify relevant studies on the educational strategies for IPP. We will include relevant English articles published after 1978. For a comprehensive search, we will explore websites and key journals, and hand-searched reference lists of key studies. Key studies are articles deemed relevant according to the specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. We will chart and sort data using a descriptive and thematic analysis approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review will be the first to examine all forms of pedagogical strategies used in training invasive fetal procedures. As an analysis of pre-existing available data in the literature, this scoping review does not require ethical approval. We anticipate that results will identify research gaps as well as novel ideas for education strategies and assessment. Findings from this study will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal, medical education and clinical conferences, and in knowledge translation settings, aiming to improve clinical practice and quality of care.
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 | 0.091 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.010 |
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".