The dental “box of horrors” clinical practice game: A pilot project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The dental department of the University Hospital of Nice has set the "box of horrors," an innovative concept inspired by the "room of horrors," created in 2006 in Canada, and utilized since 2011 in France. PURPOSE: The aim was to assess the impact and perceived value of this clinical practice game utilized by fourth-year dental students. METHODS: This pilot study following a cross-sectional pre- and posttest research design was used to assess students' change in performance. The experimental group was divided into 12 students teams (n = 50). A questionnaire was completed before they entered the box; they had then to find out 10 errors hidden in the box in a set time. A debriefing was held immediately after. The control group answered the same questions but did not follow the course inside the box. The percentages of correct answers were compared between the two groups with a Mann-Whitney test, and the scores per student were analyzed with a mixed effects ordinal multiple logistic regression. Finally, a satisfaction questionnaire was proposed. RESULTS: After the course, the students from the experimental group performed 94% correct answers, while those from the control group showed 78% (significant difference). The outcome of the mixed effect multiple regression showed a significant group effect (p = 0.0001) and gender effect (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Clinical games, although complex to implement, are interesting and rewarding tools. The adaptation of the tool to the dental sector appeared to be feasible.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".