The Effect of Anatomical Education for First Year Medical Students in Point of Care Ultrasound Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction With technological progress in portable Ultrasound machines, there is a growing demand for healthcare providers to perform bedside Ultrasonography, also known as Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS). Training health care providers to perform POCUS can complement their physical examination findings, help them reach a more accurate diagnosis, improve patient outcomes and safety measurements for various therapeutic/diagnostic procedures. Properly performing POCUS requires both technical knowledge of how to operate the equipment, as well as functional knowledge of the involved anatomy. However, it is unknown exactly how students' previous anatomical knowledge affects their ability to appreciate and learn to effectively use POCUS. Aim To assess the effect of anatomical education on students' feelings towards POCUS training. Methods First year medical students at McMaster University participate in an integrated curriculum. Each week, half of the class attends an applied radiology session, including POCUS training, while the other half studies the related anatomy in a cadaver lab. In order to assess the effect of anatomy education on POCUS training, a preliminary qualitative study was conducted. A 5 question survey was distributed to each group, asking students to rate their feelings towards their POCUS training on a scale of 1–7. Further, students were given space on the survey to provide additional comments. 68 responses were collected from students who had not yet taken the anatomy sessions, while 57 surveys were collected from the students who had. Results The questions asked were: (A) Does the orientation of the probe position make sense with patient's anatomy? (B) Does the orientation of the probe position allow you to further understand the ultrasound images? (C) Does the session help you to reinforce your anatomy knowledge? (D) Do you think having anatomy knowledge helps you to learn ultrasound scanning training session easier? And (E) Did you wish to know more anatomy prior to this session? Students who had not yet received the corresponding anatomy session responded with consistently lower scores to each of questions (A)–(D). Both groups responded similarly to question (E). Discussion and Conclusion These results illustrate the importance of prior anatomical education for medical students being trained in POCUS. Students who had not yet completed the accompanying anatomy session experienced more difficulty understanding the relation of the probe's position to the corresponding images. Understandably, those students did not feel as though the POCUS training helped reinforce their anatomy knowledge, and did not feel as though their anatomy knowledge was helpful in the session. Interestingly, both groups similarly wished to know more anatomy prior to the session. These results suggest first year medical students value having anatomical education before learning POCUS techniques. Having previous anatomy knowledge helped students to better understand their POCUS training, and this training in turn helped the students reinforce their anatomy knowledge. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".