Advancing healthcare practice and education via data sharing: demonstrating the utility of open data by training an artificial intelligence model to assess cardiopulmonary resuscitation skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health professional education stands to gain substantially from collective efforts toward building video databases of skill performances in both real and simulated settings. An accessible resource of videos that demonstrate an array of performances - both good and bad-provides an opportunity for interdisciplinary research collaborations that can advance our understanding of movement that reflects technical expertise, support educational tool development, and facilitate assessment practices. In this paper we raise important ethical and legal considerations when building and sharing health professions education data. Collective data sharing may produce new knowledge and tools to support healthcare professional education. We demonstrate the utility of a data-sharing culture by providing and leveraging a database of cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performances that vary in quality. The CPR skills performance database (collected for the purpose of this research, hosted at UK Data Service's ReShare Repository) contains videos from 40 participants recorded from 6 different angles, allowing for 3D reconstruction for movement analysis. The video footage is accompanied by quality ratings from 2 experts, participants' self-reported confidence and frequency of performing CPR, and the demographics of the participants. From this data, we present an Automatic Clinical Assessment tool for Basic Life Support that uses pose estimation to determine the spatial location of the participant's movements during CPR and a deep learning network that assesses the performance quality.
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 | 0.013 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".