MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3211876191 · doi:10.3138/jvme-2021-0109

Implementation of a Low-Cost 3D-Printed Feline Larynx Model for Veterinary Students

2021· article· en· W3211876191 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel M. Sakai, Heather Skrzypczak, Pablo Nejamkin, María Clausse, Carlos A. Bulant, María José Del Sole

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Medical Education · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicVeterinary Practice and Education Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
Keywords3d printedVeterinary medicineLarynxMedicineMedical physicsMedical educationBiomedical engineeringAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endotracheal intubation (EI) in domestic cats is an important skill that veterinary students learn in order to perform anesthesia safely in this species. Implementing a 3D-printed larynx model (LaryngoCUBE) during the instruction process may improve student’s learning of EI in felines. Twenty-two third-year students performed EI in cats with standard training (ST), and 16 students trained with the model (MT) the day before the laboratory. It was evaluated whether training with the model decreases the time and number of EI attempts, students’ perceived difficulty performing EI using a visual analog score (VAS; 0 cm = very easy, 10 cm = extremely difficult; median [minimum–maximum]), and the incidence of failure to perform EI. The EI time on ST (58 [18–160] seconds) was longer, but not statistically different from MT (29 [13–120] seconds; p = .101). The number of EI attempts on ST (2 [1–3]) was higher than MT (1 [1–3]; p = .005). The VAS on the ST and MT were 4.5 (0.0–10.0) cm and 3.0 (0.2–10.0) cm, respectively ( p = .029). The failure rate was 27% on the ST and 25% on the MT ( p = 1.000). Students who practiced with a larynx model took fewer attempts to perform EI, tended to be faster, and found that EI was easier. However, the EI success rate in MT was not improved.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.561
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.457
GPT teacher head0.633
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Medical EducationSame topicVeterinary Practice and Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207