Assessment of medical students’ knowledge of anaphylaxismanagement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Anaphylaxis, a severe systemic hypersensitivity reaction, is a life-threatening condition that often occurs when there is no where there is no access to the hospital and qualified medical care.Aim: To assess medical students' (MS) knowledge of anaphylaxis, principles of management and how they rate their skills in this area. Material and methods:An anonymous questionnaire created based on current guidelines was distributed via social media to students of the Faculty of Medicine at the Medical University of Warsaw in 2022.The group included 252 MS from all years of study.Results: Eighty seven percent of MS correctly defined the term anaphylaxis and 75% know its symptoms.The vast majority (91%) identified the correct procedure and the first-choice drug (97%).Almost all (95%) MS were aware that in anaphylaxis there are no absolute contraindications to epinephrine.Although 98% of MS indicated the route of epinephrine administration, only 58% knew the correct dose.Only 12% of MS rated their ability to manage severe anaphylaxis well, 36% fairly well, 41% emphasized their lack of practice and 8% were afraid of making a mistake.Eighty percent of respondents thought they should have more practice.Conclusions: Most MS were aware of what anaphylaxis is and what the basic guidelines for management are.However, a large proportion of them did not feel confident in their abilities in this area, which indicated a lack of sufficient practice.Students expressed the need to develop crisis management skills as part of their coursework and to disseminate this knowledge in the community.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".