MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224248982 · doi:10.3138/jvme-2021-0138

Effect of Romanowsky-Stained Concentrated Preparations versus Direct Smears on Veterinary Students’ Ability to Identify Bacterial Sepsis in Fluid Cytology Samples from Dogs, Cats, and Horses

2022· article· en· W4224248982 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Veronica A. Hough, Kathryn L. Wycislo, Erik H. Hofmeister, Tara L. Piech, Lynn C. Maki, Stephanie L. Shaver

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Medical Education · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCytologyMedicineSepsisSignificant differencePathologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Veterinary students’ accuracy, confidence, and time required to diagnose bacterial sepsis in fluid cytology samples was evaluated using two different slide preparation methods: direct smears and cytocentrifuged concentrated preparations. We hypothesized veterinary students would diagnose fluids as septic on concentrated preparations more accurately and quickly than on direct smears. Thirty third- and fourth-year students who had previously participated in a clinical pathology course completed a survey regarding general cytology experience and reviewed 40 randomized Romanowsky-stained slides via microscopy. Slides consisted of 10 septic and 10 non-septic samples with matched direct and concentrated slides, prepared from fluids from dogs, cats, and a horse. Participants’ slide evaluation time, diagnosis, confidence, and slide photographs of areas considered septic were recorded. No difference in diagnostic accuracy between direct and concentrated samples was identified (area under the curve: 57% for both preparations, p = 0.77), although students agreed with pathologist-determined diagnoses more often when viewing concentrated samples ( M = 63%, SD = 11% for concentrated; M = 56%, SD = 21% for direct, p = .012). A positive relationship existed between accuracy of diagnosis ( R2 = .59) and senior status ( p = .002), comfort interpreting cytology slides ( p < .03), and if the student had taken the senior pathology rotation ( p = .02). Only 38% (121/319) of participant photographs correctly identified sepsis. Under experimental conditions, concentrated preparations did not increase the accuracy of veterinary students’ bacterial sepsis diagnosis; however, since accuracy did increase with cytology experience and comfort level, additional pre-clinical and clinical cytology training may benefit students before entering practice.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.398 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Medical EducationSame topicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsFrench-language works237,207