MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4283024262 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2022.70

prepOSCE: A Virtual, Scalable Solution to Prepare Residents for Their OSCE Examination

2022· article· en· W4283024262 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Laura Garofalo, Nitin Gaikwad, Stuart Menzies, Carol Thomas, Colleen Curtis, Hélène Parpal

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of CalgaryCommunications Research Centre Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertificationSession (web analytics)Objective structured clinical examinationMedical educationMedicinePsychologyFamily medicineComputer scienceManagementWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: The Royal College Comprehensive Objective Examination in Neurology provides certification for Canadian neurologists and consists of a written examination and the Observed Structured Clinical Encounter (OSCE). The OSCE portion of the certification involves residents visiting several patient stations where they address case scenarios with an examiner. Unfortunately, residents lack exam preparation time due to demanding work hours. In response to resident needs, we created a novel, virtual preparation OSCE program – “prepOSCE” – and evaluated its efficacy. The prepOSCE program employed a proprietary virtual solution from CTC Communications Corp. Ten virtual sessions accommodated 70 residents totally. Seven Canadian physicians and two co-chairs created case scenarios for the stations. On session day, seven residents arrived in a virtual plenary room for briefing followed by assignment to a station by CTC. Residents then moved virtually through prepOSCE stations a different examiner and case scenario in each. Following their session, residents and evaluators were surveyed to capture experiences. The average program rating was 4.22 out of 5 (n= 36 residents of 70 residents who participated in the program) and 4.35 (n= 17 evaluators). Ninety-two percent of residents agreed or strongly agreed that they would recommend this program to their peers; they would like prepOSCE to continue next year; and the program was relevant and added value to their studies. The positive feedback received from prepOSCE participants indicates there is a need for a program like prepOSCE. This model has potential for expansion and it is hoped that specialties outside of neurology could benefit from a similar program.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Software · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.004

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreSoftware

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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques→Same topicInnovations in Medical Education→French-language works237,207→