Assessment and Management of Cardiac Patients in a Dental Office: A Learning Module for Dental Students
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dental professionals are increasingly encountering patients with complex medical conditions and histories [1], making recognizing and managing medical comorbidities in the dental office an essential skill for dentists [1, 2]. A study on 282 dentists found that 72% of them had suboptimal knowledge of cardiac patient management, highlighting the need to incorporate related strategies into dental education [3]. There is also a call for enhanced medical education and emergency preparedness across dental education [1, 2]. Problem-based learning (PBL) is a student-centered learning method [4] helpful in teaching emergency management. However, deficiencies in the theoretical knowledge of the PBL student subgroups have been reported [5]. Two interactive PBL modules were developed for the Doctor of Dental Surgery (DDS) students using the H5P through Lumi Education (https://lumi.education/en/). Module I focused on the anatomy and physiology of the heart, while Module II was a case-based session on the assessment and management of a patient with suspected unstable angina and/or myocardial infarction in a dental office (Figure 1). These self-paced modules aimed to help students apply theoretical knowledge and transition from the classroom to the clinic. Students could progress through the modules by answering the questions correctly. As students progressed, new information about the patient was revealed to them. The sequence of events and critical thinking questions were designed to remind students of the patient's existing medical conditions and important considerations for dental management (Figure 2). The case emerged as an emergency in the dental office, guiding students to manage and evaluate the scenario (Figures 1 and 2). Students could check their answers, retry, get hints, or explore more information about the patient using the embedded buttons in the module. The learning outcomes of the two modules are in Table S1. A study was conducted to explore students' interactions and perceptions of the PBL modules. Student interaction data were collected from the LMS. A survey invitation was posted in the LMS. The University of Alberta Research Ethics Board approved this study (Pro00117742). The DDS program enrolls 32 students each year. 84% (n = 27) and 66% (n = 21) of the 1st year DDS students interacted with Module-I and Module-II, respectively (Figure 3A,B), shortly before their non-cumulative exams (Figure S1). Five students responded to the voluntary survey. 100% of the survey respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that the modules made their learning easier and more enjoyable, helped clarify concepts, and positively impacted their learning experiences (Figure 3C). When asked to identify the key benefits of the modules, survey participants cited the ability to self-assess, integrate information, and clarify concepts as some of their top choices (Figure 3D). The authors declare no conflicts of interest. This study has been approved by the Research Ethics Board of the University of Alberta (ID: Pro00117742). Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it