MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2977975453 · doi:10.1002/uog.21683

EP27.38: Is the use of the ScanTrainer ultrasound simulator relevant to the continuous professional development of obstetricians and gynecologists?

2019· article· en· W2977975453 on OpenAlexaff
Isabelle Hardy, Émilie Gosselin, C. Bertholet, Évelyne Raïche, Marie‐Ève Roy‐Lacroix, Annie Ouellet

Bibliographic record

VenueUltrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineContext (archaeology)Simulation trainingUltrasoundPhysical therapySimulationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To assess the interest and satisfaction of obstetricians and gynecologists (OB/GYNs) with the use of an ultrasound simulator as part of a multimodal continuous professional development (CPD) training; Écho-Réalité. Twenty-four OB/GYNs ultrasonographers with different experience levels, participating in the training; “Écho-Réalité: Second trimester ultrasound” were enrolled in our study. This two days multimodal ultrasound CPD training includes theoretical, reflexive and practical sessions on real patients in a simulated and workplace context. Participants had access to a ScanTrainer simulator (Medaphor) on a voluntary basis throughout the formation. Their ability level and time spent on the simulator were assessed. Participants were asked to fill out an online 32-questions satisfaction survey at the end of each day. Eighteen (77%) participants used the simulator during their training and all participants filled out the satisfaction surveys. Participants spent an average of 6 minutes (min 2; max 10) using the ultrasound simulator. The average time to correctly complete a clinical case was 1.34 minutes (min 0.5; max 2). The overall Écho-Réalité training obtained very high satisfaction levels of 96% and 100% for training in a simulated and workplace context, respectively. Of those who used the simulator, 62% agreed that this device was a useful learning tool at their level of expertise, while 38% disagreed with this statement. Only 21% of participants found the simulator experience to be a good equivalent to real patient practice, or satisfactory for their CPD expert training. The integration of ultrasound simulators in CPD appears of limited interest for OB/GYNs ultrasonographers when practice on live/real patients is available. Further trials should investigate the interest in, and efficiency of ultrasound simulators for CPD training as a preparatory step, or separate activity without the access to a real patient model. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUltrasound in Obstetrics and GynecologySame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207