Spatial abilities training in the field of technical skills in health care: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the effect of interventions on spatial abilities in the field of technical skills in health care. METHODS: A literature search was conducted up to November 14, 2017 in Scopus and in several databases on EBSCOhost platform. Citations were obtained, articles related to retained citations were reviewed and a final list of included studies was identified. Methods in the field of technical skills relating an intervention to spatial abilities test scores between intervention groups or obtained before and after the intervention were identified as eligible. The quality of included studies was assessed and data were extracted in a systematic way. RESULTS: A series of 5513 citations was obtained. Ninety-nine articles were retained and fully reviewed, yielding four included studies. No difference in the Hidden Figure Test score after one year was observed after residency training in General Surgery of at least nine months. A first-year dental curriculum was not found to elevate the Novel Object Cross-Sections Test score (P = 0.07). A two-semester learning period of abdominal sonography was found to increase the Revised Minnesota Paper Form Board Test score (P < 0.05). A hands-on radiology course using interactive three-dimensional image post-processing software consisting of seven two-hour long seminars on a weekly basis was found to amplify the Cube Perspective Test score (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Spatial abilities tests scores were enhanced by courses in abdominal sonography and hands-on radiology, but were not improved by residency training in General Surgery and first-year dental curriculum.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".