Creation of a Novel Hands-on Model to Teach Breast Tanner Staging to Pediatric Learners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Pubertal Tanner staging is a standard part of the pediatric physical examination and provides valuable insight into a child's growth and development. In practice, pediatric care practitioners have varying levels of confidence and expertise with Tanner staging. Currently, breast Tanner staging is taught via illustrated images or limited hands-on practice on real patients during pediatric residency training. METHODS: We used synthetic materials to develop a lifelike, 3-dimensional, hands-on educational tool aimed at teaching medical students and pediatric resident physicians how to identify and distinguish among the 5 breast Tanner stages. This tool was evaluated by a group of experienced pediatric endocrinologists. RESULTS: Thirty pediatric endocrinologists with an average of 16.7 years of clinical experience evaluated the model, and all participants believed the model was a valuable teaching tool for medical students and pediatric resident physicians. Tanner stages 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were correctly identified by 100%, 93%, 90%, 100%, and 73% of participants, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We show that the use of a synthetic, 3-dimensional, lifelike breast model to teach breast Tanner staging may be valuable within the context of pediatric medical education. Further refinement of the model as well as curriculum development and evaluation is necessary before broadly disseminating this model as an educational tool.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".