MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393219406 · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2024.2326112

Effectiveness of simulation models and digital alternatives in training ophthalmoscopy: A systematic review

2024· review· en· W4393219406 on OpenAlex
Benjamin Paik, Nicole Ngai, Jess Rhee, Kendrick Co Shih, Khyber Alam, Louis Tong

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Teacher · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Health Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Medical Research Council
KeywordsOphthalmoscopyFundus (uterus)OptometryComputer scienceProfilometerMedical physicsMedicineOphthalmologyEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Traditional direct ophthalmoscopy (TDO) is the oldest method of fundus examination; however, it has fallen out of use due to its technical difficulty and limitations to clinical utility, amidst the advent of potentially better options. A spectrum of new technologies may help in addressing the shortcomings of TDO: simulation mannequins with non-tracked TDO, simulation models with tracked TDO, and smartphone ophthalmoscopy (SFO). METHODOLOGY: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for all studies evaluating usage of simulation mannequins/models and SFO in ophthalmology education was performed, from inception till April 2023 with no language restriction. We ensured that we included all possible relevant articles by performing backward reference searching of included articles and published review articles. RESULTS: = 12). Non-tracked TDO and SFO were superior in training competency relative to control (TDO on real eyes). Intriguingly, tracked TDO was non superior to controls. SFO appears to enhance the learning effectiveness of ophthalmoscopy, due to real-time projection of the retina view, permitting instantaneous and targeted feedback. Learners reported improved ergonomics, including a wider field of view and more comfortable viewing distance. Retention of images and recordings permitted the audit of learning and paves the way for storage of such images in patients' electronic medical record and rapid dissemination for specialist referral. CONCLUSIONS: Smartphone ophthalmoscopy (SFO) permits integration of both the practice and learning of ophthalmoscopy, and the auditing of both. These advantages over traditional methods (with simulation or otherwise) may lead to a paradigm shift in undergraduate ophthalmology education. However, the nascency of SFO necessitates preservation of traditional techniques to tide through this period of transition.

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.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.755

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.368
GPT teacher head0.601
Teacher spread0.233 · 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