MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981620602 · doi:10.1097/mpg.0000000000002525

Exploring Use of Endoscopy Simulation in North American Pediatric Gastroenterology Fellowship Training Programs

2019· article· en· W2981620602 on OpenAlexaffabout
Aayush Gabrani, Iona M. Monteiro, Catharine M. Walsh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationThe Wilson CentreHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndoscopyPediatric gastroenterologyGeneral surgeryGastroenterologyInternal medicineMedical physicsHepatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Increasing evidence supports simulation-based training; however, limited data exist regarding its use in pediatric gastroenterology (GI). We explored the use of simulation-based endoscopy training in pediatric GI fellowship programs across North America. METHODS: GI fellowship program directors (PDs) from the United States and Canada were surveyed between August to November 2018. The pretested, electronic survey comprised 3 sections: program demographics; details of current simulation-based training; and PDs' perceptions of endoscopy simulation. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Forty-three of 71 (61%) PDs responded (6 Canadian, 37 US). Programs were predominantly academic (95%) and enrolled 1.87 ± 1.01 fellows/yr. Twenty-four programs (56%) reported using simulation for endoscopy training, whereas 8 (19%) used simulation for nonprocedural education. Only 2 programs (5%) used endoscopy simulation for assessment. Of those using simulation (n = 24), upper endoscopy and colonoscopy were trained most frequently, and mechanical simulators were used most commonly. Eight programs (33%) required simulation training prior to clinical performance. Although 10 programs (42%) provided protected training time, only 2 (8%) tracked hours. Three programs (13%) reported having an organized curriculum and 6 (25%) train their endoscopic trainers. Cost, time constraints, and lack of a standardized curriculum were perceived as key barriers to integration. Most PDs reported a need for endoscopy simulation to train both technical and nontechnical skills; however, they felt simulation cannot replace clinical experience. CONCLUSION: PDs recognize the potential importance of endoscopy simulation, particularly for novices; however, only 56% report using it. Perceived barriers indicate the need for inexpensive portable simulators and a validated pediatric simulation curriculum to promote uptake.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and NutritionSame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207