MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362637177 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067391

Multicentre study protocol comparing standard NRP to deveLoped Educational Modules for Resuscitation of Neonates in the Delivery Room with Congenital Heart Disease (LEARN-CHD)

2023· article· en· W4362637177 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Philip T. Levy, Alyssa R. Thomas, Brenda Hiu Yan Law, Chloë Joynt, Ruby Gupta, Summer Elshenawy, Danielle Reed, Leeann R. Pavlek, Jennifer Shepherd, Sharada H. Gowda, Beth A. Johnson, Molly K. Ball, Noorjahan Ali

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaRoyal Alexandra Hospital
FundersUniversity of AlbertaNationwide Children's HospitalBoston Children's Hospital
KeywordsMedicineResuscitationNeonatal resuscitationProtocol (science)Institutional review boardCurriculumMedical emergencyIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineAlternative medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Infants born with critical congenital heart defects (CCHDs) have unique transitional pathophysiology that often requires special resuscitation and management considerations in the delivery room (DR). While much is known about neonatal resuscitation of infants with CCHDs, current neonatal resuscitation guidelines such as the neonatal resuscitation programme (NRP) do not include algorithm modifications or education specific to CCHDs. The implementation of CCHD specific neonatal resuscitation education is further hampered by the large number of healthcare providers (HCPs) that need to be reached. Online learning modules (eLearning) may provide a solution but have not been designed or tested for this specific learning need. Our objective in this study is to design targeted eLearning modules for DR resuscitation of infants with specific CCHDs and compare HCP knowledge and team performance in simulated resuscitations among HCPs exposed to these modules compared with directed CCHD readings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In a prospective multicentre trial, HCP proficient in standard NRP education curriculum are randomised to either (a) directed CCHD readings or (b) CCHD eLearning modules developed by the study team. The efficacy of these modules will be evaluated using (a) individual preknowledge/postknowledge testing and (b) team-based resuscitation simulations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study protocol is approved by nine participating sites: the Boston Children's Hospital Institutional Review Board (IRB-P00042003), University of Alberta Research Ethics Board (Pro00114424), the Children's Wisconsin IRB (1760009-1), Nationwide Children's Hospital IRB (STUDY00001518), Milwaukee Children's IRB (1760009-1) and University of Texas Southwestern IRB (STU-2021-0457) and is under review at following sites: University of Cincinnati, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Children's Hospital of Los Angeles and Children's Mercy-Kansas City. Study results will be disseminated to participating individuals in a lay format and presented to the scientific community at paediatric and critical care conferences and published in relevant peer-reviewed journals.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.335 · 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.

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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicSimulation-Based Education in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207