MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Implementation of an Alternative Training Method for Cardiac Blood Collection in Mice

2023· article· en· W4387412562 on OpenAlexaff
April J George, Carly I. O’Malley, Rachel EB Bulock, Brianne J Harmsen, Glenn E. Brado, Patricia V. Turner, Wendy O. Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTechnicianTrainerCurriculumMedical educationComprehensionMedicineBlood collectionTraining (meteorology)Quality (philosophy)PsychologyNursingComputer sciencePedagogyEngineeringMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Training personnel to work with animals presents a variety of challenges, both logistically and with regard to animal welfare. These issues make training an ideal opportunity to evaluate practices and to implement the 3R principles (refinement, replacement, and reduction). Cardiac blood collection from mice is a procedure that can compromise the 3Rs by requiring repeated practice and animal euthanasia. The development of a non-animal training model would promote the 3R principles. Our goals for the development of a new training model for cardiac blood collection from mice were to reduce the number of mice needed to achieve competency, improve our culture of care, and refine the training approach by improving competency. The training model was developed using commonly available materials. The total cost of the model was less than $15 USD per model. Two training curricula were conducted concurrently over a 5-mo period: 1) a curriculum in which trainees used the model before progressing to live mice and 2) the traditional curriculum, which used euthanized mice throughout. The measured variables included the total number of mice used, proportions of trainees who reached competency, the time needed to reach competency, method comprehension, quality of skill performance, trainer and trainee feedback, and training costs. The alternative group used at least 10 fewer mice per technician as compared with the traditionally trained group. The alternative group had a higher competency rate, with 82% (9 of 11 trainees) reaching competency compared with 60% (3 of 5 trainees) in the traditional group. Skill comprehension and quality were superior in the alternative group, as evidenced by fewer gross lesions at necropsy. Overall, personnel in the alternative group provided positive feedback with regard to the use of fewer mice, acquisition of both skill and confidence, and benefits for compassion fatigue. The use of this model is now our standard approach for training personnel in cardiac blood collection in mice. Our results demonstrate that the use of models in training curricula can enhance skill development and reduce the use of mice.

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)0.005
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 score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.406 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal ScienceSame topicSimulation-Based Education in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207