Coagulation test understanding and ordering by medical trainees: Novel teaching approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Coagulation testing provides a prime opportunity to make an impact on the reduction of unnecessary laboratory test ordering, as there are clear indications for testing. Despite the prothrombin time/international normalized ratio and activated partial thromboplastin time being validated for specific clinical indications, they are frequently ordered as screening tests and often ordered together, suggesting a gap in understanding of coagulation. Methods: Based on a needs assessment, we developed an online educational module on coagulation for trainees, incorporating education on testing cost, specificity, and sensitivity. Fifty participating resident physicians and medical students completed a validated premodule quiz, postmodule quiz after completion of the module, and a latent quiz 3 to 6 months after to assess longer-term knowledge retention. Trainees provided responses regarding their subjective laboratory test-ordering practices before and after module completion. Results: The median premodule quiz score was 67% (n = 50; range, 24%-86%) with an increase of 24% to a median postmodule quiz score of 91% (n = 50; range, 64%-100%). There was evidence of sustained knowledge acquisition with a latent quiz median score of 89% (n = 40; range, 67%-100%). Trainees were more likely to consider the sensitivity, specificity, and cost of laboratory investigations before ordering them following completion of the educational module. Conclusions: Using the expertise of medical educators and incorporating trainee feedback, we employed a novel approach to the teaching of coagulation to maximize its approachability and clinical relevance. We found sustained knowledge retention regarding coagulation and appropriate coagulation test ordering, and a subjective change to trainee ordering habits following participation in our educational intervention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".