MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999327167 · doi:10.7759/cureus.6612

Investigating the Perceived Efficacy of a Silicone Suturing Task Trainer Using Input from Novice Medical Trainees

2020· article· en· W2999327167 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Gallagher, Nicole Bishop, Adam Dubrowski

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ontario Institute of TechnologyMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrainerMedicineTask (project management)Graduation (instrument)Medical educationCurriculumPsychologyPedagogyMechanical engineeringComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Suturing is an essential procedural skill that medical students are expected to be competent in before they graduate medical school; however, there is often a lack of suturing instruction and practice in undergraduate medicine curriculums. Silicone suturing task trainers created from 3D printed molds can help address this gap in medical education by improving student's manual skills before they perform procedures on real patients upon graduation. Commercially available suture task trainers on the market today lack validation from medical learners; therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the perceived efficacy of a silicone skin suture task trainer created from a 3D printed mold using input from novice medical trainees. A silicone task trainer created by MUN Med 3D was used to teach suturing during two surgery interest group skill development sessions. At the end of the sessions, 38 medical students completed a product evaluation survey that assessed the perceived educational efficacy of the suturing task trainer. Overall, the feedback received from the participants was positive and supported the use of silicone suturing task trainers in undergraduate medicine curriculums.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.594
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207