MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PP504 Topic: AS22–Quality and Safety/Errors/Data Management/Other: PAEDIATRIC CRITICAL CARE FELLOW PERCEPTION OF LEARNING THROUGH VIRTUAL REALITY BRONCHOSCOPY

2024· article· en· W4404041737 on OpenAlexaff
Liron Talmi, Briseida Mema, Sabine Nabecker, Dominique Piquette

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Critical Care Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook HospitalSinai Health SystemHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBronchoscopyPerceptionVirtual realityPatient safetyQuality (philosophy)Intensive care medicineSurgeryHuman–computer interactionHealth careEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims & Objectives: Virtual reality (VR) simulators have revolutionized training in bronchoscopy, offering unrestricted availability in a low-stakes learning environment and frequent assessments represented by automatic scoring. The VR assessments can be used to monitor and support learners’ progression. How trainees perceive these assessments needs to be clarified. The objective of this study was to examine what assessments learners select to document and receive feedback on and what influences their decisions. Methods: We used a sequential explanatory mixed methods strategy. All participants were pediatric critical care medicine trainees requiring competency in bronchoscopy skills. During independent simulation practice, we collected the number of learning-focused practice attempts (scores not recorded), assessment-focused practice (scores recorded and reviewed by the instructor for feedback), and the amount of time each attempt lasted. After simulation training, we conducted interviews to explore learners’ perceptions of assessment. Results: There was no significant difference in the number of attempts for each practice type. The average time per learning-focused attempt was almost three times longer than the assessment-focused attempt (mean [standard deviation] 16 ± 1 min vs. 6 ± 3 min, respectively; P < 0.05). Learners perceived documentation of their scores as high stakes and only recorded their better scores. Learners felt safer experimenting if their assessments were not recorded. Conclusions: During independent practice, learners took advantage of automatic assessments generated by the VR simulator to monitor their progression. However, the recording of scores from the simulation program to document learners’ trajectory to a set goal was perceived as high stakes, discouraging learners from seeking supervisor feedback. Keywords: Assessment, bronchoscopy, Learning, Feedback, Simulation

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)0.003
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1020.008

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.371 · 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 designQualitative
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 venuePediatric Critical Care MedicineSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207