MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405623922 · doi:10.29173/hsi416

Taking the Pulse on Pedagogy: Anesthesiology Training in Virtual and Augmented Reality

2021· article· en· W4405623922 on OpenAlex
John Christy Johnson, Peter Anto Johnson

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Science Inquiry · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnesthesiologyAugmented realityVirtual realityPopularityPsychological interventionCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicPain medicineMedical educationTraining (meteorology)Computer sciencePsychologyMedicineHuman–computer interactionDiseaseAnesthesiaNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anesthesiology represents a field where clinical precision cannot be compromised when it comes to procedural task performance. As such, better pedagogical approaches can be critical in ensuring a trainee is able to acquire mastery and refine technique for anesthesiologic interventions. Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) technologies are one option that is growing in popularity due to its ability to enhance hands-on learning (albeit virtually), especially during disease outbreaks, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. A large advantage to these forms of remote learning technology is the reduction of human resources required to run a training session. This commentary explores the current state of VR/AR in anesthesiology medical education.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.255
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.218 · 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