MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392883532 · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28133

Supporting self-regulated-learning in colonoscopy training—A comparison cohort trial

2024· article· en· W4392883532 on OpenAlexaff
Claudia Jaensch, Rune Dall Jensen, Ryan Brydges, Charlotte Paltved, Anders Husted Madsen

Bibliographic record

VenueHeliyon · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonoscopyCohortChecklistMedicineIntraclass correlationCohort studyPsychologyPhysical therapyColorectal cancerInternal medicineClinical psychologyCancerPsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: This study aimed to demonstrate that using a self-regulated learning (SRL) approach can improve colonoscopy performance skills. Background: Colonoscopy is the gold standard for detecting colorectal cancer and removing its precursors: polyps. Acquiring proficiency in colonoscopy is challenging, requiring completion of several hundred procedures. SRL seems to be beneficial to help trainees acquire competencies in regulating their future learning processes and enhance the outcomes of current learning situations. SRL is a learner-centred approach that refers to a trainee's ability to understand and control their learning environment, including cognitions, motivations and emotions. The key abilities include self- and situational awareness, task analysis, and strategic planning. This study is the first to use an SRL approach for workplace-based colonoscopy training. Methods: In this comparison cohort trial, participants used two SRL supports: a self-review of videotaped performance, and an online learning platform with procedural and conceptual knowledge about colonoscopy. In the control cohort, participants performed patient-based colonoscopy as usual in their departments. Improvement was monitored via three video-based ratings (study start, end of the study period, and follow-up) using the Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Competency Assessment Tool (GiECAT). Outcomes were analysed using two-way analysis of variance with repeated measurements. Results: This study recruited 21 participants (12, intervention cohort; nine, control cohort); 58 videos were recorded. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.88 (95% CI 0.61-0.98; p < 0.001). The global rating scale (GRS) and checklist (CL) in GiECAT were analysed separately. No statistically significant main effects of cohort (GRS: F(1,16) = 2.84, p = 0.11; CL: F(1,16) = 1.06, p = 0.32), test (GRS: F(2,32) = 2.56, p = 0.09; CL: F(2,32) = 0.76, p = 0.48), or interactions between cohort and test were observed (GRS: F(2,32) = 1.16, p = 0.33; CL: F(2,32) = 1.01, p = 0.37). Conclusions: SRL in patient-based colonoscopy is feasible; however, no clear effect on performance scores was observed.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.717
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
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 integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.385 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeliyonSame topicInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207