MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367184399 · doi:10.24908/pocus.v8i1.16209

A Longitudinal Evaluation of a Multimodal POCUS Curriculum in Pediatric Residents

2023· article· en· W4367184399 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Reshma Sabnani, Celia S. Willard, Carolina Vega, Zachary W. Binder

Bibliographic record

VenuePOCUS Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumPoint of care ultrasoundIntervention (counseling)Medical educationMedicineFocused assessment with sonography for traumaTest (biology)Medical physicsUltrasoundPsychologyRadiologyNursingPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Pediatric residency programs often do not include a point of care ultrasound (POCUS) curriculum. We analyzed a novel POCUS curriculum for pediatric residents that incorporated an online question bank (QB), in addition to a traditional teaching model of didactic instruction and hands-on learning experience. Methods: Four high-yield POCUS topics were chosen: Focused Assessment by Sonography for Trauma (FAST), soft tissue, lung, and cardiac. Residents completed online multiple-choice quizzes before and after each of four in-person learning sessions, taught by ultrasound faculty and fellows. At the end of the academic year participants completed a knowledge retention quiz. Confidence surveys were administered to participants throughout the course of the study. Differences in means were compared by Student’s t-test. Results: Learners demonstrated post-intervention score improvement for each of the four modules. Retention testing demonstrated retained improvement for the soft tissue and cardiac modules, but not for the FAST module. Self-reported confidence increased across all four topics. Conclusion: A multimodal POCUS curriculum utilizing a combination of an online QB and in-person teaching demonstrated lasting knowledge for pediatric trainees.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePOCUS JournalSame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207