Simulation in Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine Fellowship Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the use of simulation in neonatal-perinatal medicine (NPM) fellowship programs. STUDY DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional survey of program directors (PDs) and simulation educators in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accredited NPM fellowship programs. RESULTS: Responses were received from 59 PDs and 52 simulation educators, representing 60% of accredited programs. Of responding programs, 97% used simulation, which most commonly included neonatal resuscitation (94%) and procedural skills (94%) training. The time and scope of simulation use varied significantly. The majority of fellows (51%) received ≤20 hours of simulation during training. The majority of PDs (63%) wanted fellows to receive >20 hours of simulation. Barriers to simulation included lack of faculty time, experience, funding, and curriculum. CONCLUSION: While the majority of fellowship programs use simulation, the time and scope of fellow exposure to simulation experiences are limited. The creation of a standardized simulation curriculum may address identified barriers to simulation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".