MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395113980 · doi:10.2196/46507

The Use of Animations Depicting Cardiac Electrical Activity to Improve Confidence in Understanding of Cardiac Pathology and Electrocardiography Traces Among Final-Year Medical Students: Nonrandomized Controlled Trial

2024· article· en· W4395113980 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alexandra Cardoso Pinto, Daniella Soussi, Subaan Qasim, Aleksandra Dunin-Borkowska, Thiara Rupasinghe, Nicholas Ubhi, Lasith Ranasinghe

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Computer scienceMedicineThematic analysisMedical physicsQualitative researchNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Electrocardiography (ECG) interpretation is a fundamental skill for medical students and practicing medical professionals. Recognizing ECG pathologies promptly allows for quick intervention, especially in acute settings where urgent care is needed. However, many medical students find ECG interpretation and understanding of the underlying pathology challenging, with teaching methods varying greatly. Objective: This study involved the development of novel animations demonstrating the passage of electrical activity for well-described cardiac pathologies and showcased them alongside the corresponding live ECG traces during a web-based tutorial for final-year medical students. We aimed to assess whether the animations improved medical students' confidence in visualizing cardiac electrical activity and ECG interpretation, compared to standard ECG teaching methods. Methods: Final-year medical students at Imperial College London attended a web-based tutorial demonstrating the 7 animations depicting cardiac electrical activity and the corresponding ECG trace. Another tutorial without the animations was held to act as a control. Students completed a questionnaire assessing their confidence in interpreting ECGs and visualizing cardiovascular electrical transmission before and after the tutorial. Intervention-arm participants were also invited to a web-based focus group to explore their experiences of past ECG teaching and the tutorial, particularly on aspects they found helpful and what could be further improved in the tutorial and animations. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess the statistical significance of any changes in confidence. Focus group transcripts were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: Overall, 19 students attended the intervention arm, with 15 (79%) completing both the pre- and posttutorial questionnaires and 15 (79%) participating in focus groups, whereas 14 students attended the control arm, with 13 (93%) completing both questionnaires. Median confidence in interpreting ECGs in the intervention arm increased after the tutorial (2, IQR 1.5-3.0 vs 3, IQR 3-4.5; P<.001). Improvement was seen in both confidence in reviewing or diagnosing cardiac rhythms and the visualization of cardiac electrical activity. However, there was no significant difference between the intervention and control arms, for all pathologies (all P>.05). The main themes from the thematic analysis were that ECGs are a complex topic and past ECG teaching has focused on memorizing traces; the visualizations enabled deeper understanding of cardiac pathology; and ECG learning requires repetition, and clinical links remain essential. Conclusions: This study highlights the value of providing concise explanations of the meaning and pathophysiology behind ECG traces, both visually and verbally. ECG teaching that incorporates relevant pathophysiology, alongside vignettes with discussions regarding investigations and management options, is likely more helpful to students than practices based solely on pattern recognition. Although the animations supported student learning, the key element was the tutor's explanations. These animations may be more helpful as a supplement to teaching, for instance, as open-access videos.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical EducationSame topicSimulation-Based Education in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207