MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999661854 · doi:10.7759/cureus.6604

Development of a Cost-Effective Pediatric Intubation Task Trainer for Rural Medical Education

2020· article· en· W2999661854 on OpenAlexaff
Stuti M. Tanya, Adam Dubrowski

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of Ontario Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTrainerIntubationStandardizationTask (project management)Airway managementMedical educationExperiential learningHealth careSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pediatric intubation and airway management (PIAM) is a life-saving, emergent procedure that is performed by a variety of healthcare practitioners. Securing the pediatric airway in a time-sensitive fashion is a specialized skill that declines with lack of practice, leading to a precarious gap in clinical competency and healthcare delivery. However, current training models for PIAM, such as live animals, human cadavers, and simulators, are not adequately accessible or reliable due to their combination of high cost, unrealistic simulation, lack of standardization, and ethical concerns. Task trainers pose an ethically and fiscally sustainable training model for experiential learning through repetitive practice, which has been shown to dramatically improve trainee proficiency and confidence in performing high-acuity low-occurrence procedures such as pediatric intubation. This work aims to report the development process and initial validation evidence of a prototype cost-effective pediatric intubation task trainer that can be used for post-graduate education, especially in resource-challenged settings.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicAirway Management and Intubation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207