MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408468468 · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000006020

Comparative Evaluation of Self-Learning Versus Instructor-Guided Cardiac Ultrasonography Training

2025· article· en· W4408468468 on OpenAlexaff
Ido Peles, Itamar Ben Shitrit, Lior Fuchs

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsAssembly of First Nations
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUltrasonographyTraining (meteorology)Medical educationMedicinePsychologyComputer scienceMedical physicsRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Point-of-care ultrasonography (PoCUS) has improved the diagnostic capacity of medical conditions; however, integrating it into medical curricula is constrained by cost, time, accessibility, and teaching style variability. This study examines whether simulator-based self-learning for cardiac PoCUS is noninferior to instructor-guided teaching. METHOD: This randomized controlled trial, conducted at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, enrolled 116 medical students as part of the medical school's PoCUS curriculum. Participants were randomly assigned to a simulator-based self-learning or conventional instructor-guided teaching group. After training, which took place January 29 to February 22, 2023, participants completed exams on February 23, 2023, assessing their abilities to obtain specific cardiac views, capture images of quality, and correctly identify common cardiac pathologies. RESULTS: Of 116 participants, 57 (49.1%) were categorized into the instructor-guided group and 59 (50.9%) the self-learning group. Participants in the self-learning group had higher total test scores compared with the instructor-guided group (81.6% vs 77.2%, P = .30), with only the apical 2-chamber view reaching statistical significance in favor of the self-learning group (81.3% vs 68.3%, P = .04). The self-learning group also scored higher on image quality, but the difference was not statistically significant (59.5% vs 55.6%, P = .26). There was no significant difference in total scores for cardiac pathology identification (93.5% in the self-learning group vs 94.7% in the instructor-guided group, P = .81). A multivariable logistic regression presented no significant difference in achieving an above median score when adjusted for gender, chest anatomy academic grade, and prior PoCUS training (adjusted odds ratio, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.69-3.53; P = .30). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the self-learning approach is noninferior to instructor-guided teaching for cardiac ultrasonography training. Incorporating these programs into medical curricula may enhance the quantity and proficiency of PoCUS operators, improving diagnostic capabilities and treatment outcomes across medical specialties.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score0.673

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.207
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic MedicineSame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207