MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Design and Development of a Lumbar Puncture Simulation Model

2018· article· en· W3176597345 on OpenAlexaff
Lakshmi Kamala, Sarah Zhang, Anna Farias, Besim Kalajdzic, André Salim Khayat, Beth‐Anne Schuelke‐Leech, Jill Urbanic

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExcellenceFlexibility (engineering)Cadaveric spasmMedical physicsLumbarMedical simulationComputer scienceMedicineLumbar punctureParametric statisticsSimulationLumbar spineMedical educationPhysical therapySurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditionally, medical trainees have been taught how to perform clinical skills on patients, moving directly from observation of senior physicians to carrying out the procedure themselves. In recent years, there has been a shift in medical education towards including simulation‐based teaching methods, which has been associated with reduced learner discomfort and improved patient outcomes. Simulation models are currently used to train medical students on lumbar punctures. The aim of this project is to improve upon existing models by creating a lumbar puncture simulation model with flexibility in the spine, with anatomically accurate physical measurements and mechanical properties, where required. Clinicians were interviewed to gather input on the initial design of the model, and will be interviewed again after testing the prototype to obtain feedback on how to further modify the model for increased clinical accuracy. A parametric CAD model was based on anatomic data collected by cadaveric experiments and measurements obtained from a literature search of imaging, cadaveric and in vivo studies. We will discuss the current prototype of the lumbar puncture model and the mechanical properties, physical measurements and clinician input incorporated in the design. Improved anatomic accuracy of the finalized model will allow trainees to translate their lumbar puncture skills more readily from practicing on the simulation model to performing on patients, leading to increased patient safety. Support or Funding Information Schulich ‐ UWindsor Opportunities for Research Excellence Program (SWORP) This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicAnatomy and Medical TechnologyFrench-language works237,207