Supporting self-regulated-learning in colonoscopy training—A comparison cohort trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".