MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385264818 · doi:10.1097/sih.0000000000000735

Low-Cost Task Trainer for In Utero Fetal Stent Placement

2023· article· en· W4385264818 on OpenAlexaff
Elisabeth Codsi, Brian Brost, Joshua F. Nitsche

Bibliographic record

VenueSimulation in Healthcare The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrainerMedicineStentLikert scaleUltrasoundInterquartile rangeSurgeryObstetrics and gynaecologyMedical physicsRadiologyComputer sciencePregnancyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Some fetal procedures such as intrauterine fetal stent placement remain rare, and simulation is needed to help learners and specialists in attaining and maintaining technical competence. We sought to design and assess a low-cost, easily assembled yet clinically relevant task trainer for fetal stent placement. METHOD: The simulator was constructed using 2 quart-sized freezer bags filled with ultrasound gel and sealed with clear packing tape. The bags were stacked vertically in a transparent plastic container with ultrasound gel applied between the bags when ultrasound was used. This task trainer was used to deploy in utero stents with or without the use of ultrasound. It has been used at the annual meeting of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine since 2015, the annual meeting of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology in 2015 and 2016, and at regional Maternal-Fetal Medicine Fellow simulation workshops since 2016. Participants were asked to complete a 5-point Likert scale survey regarding the model's realism and usefulness in training. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-three course participants evaluated the task trainer. The median rating for realism of the ultrasound images, haptic feel of stent deployment, and usefulness in training was 5 (interquartile range, 4-5). Seven physicians participated in the timed assessment of model assembly, stent deployment, and model reassembly. The average times required for the freezer bag task trainer were 2.3 minutes (2.20-2.35), 1.0 minutes (0.70-1.93), and 0.1 minutes (0.08-0.10), respectively. For the porcine tissue-based model tested in parallel, the average times were 6.0 minutes (5.00-7.06), 3.7 minutes (3.63-3.75), and 3.3 minutes (3.00-3.70), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This low-cost simulator was rated highly when used to practice in utero stent deployment and allows for numerous repetitions in each training session. It could be a valuable tool in training novice providers and allow more experienced providers to maintain competence in this low-volume procedure.

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)0.004
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.759

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSimulation in Healthcare The Journal of the Society for Simulation in HealthcareSame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207