MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412050657 · doi:10.56198/xbz24w83

Virtual Reality Training Simulators as a Learning Method for Medical Equipment: The IV Infusion Pump

2025· article· en· W4412050657 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Technology and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVirtual realityComputer scienceTraining (meteorology)Human–computer interactionMultimediaMedical equipmentSimulationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The integration of virtual reality (VR) simulators in medical education shows promise, particularly for training with equipment like the IV infusion pump. This study explores VR as an innovative tool to enhance learning, engagement, and information retention. Research supports VR’s effectiveness in visualizing complex concepts and reinforcing higher-order learning. To evaluate its impact, we tested a VR training simulator with five nursing student volunteers. Participants found the experience engaging after adjusting to the controls, though some reported discomfort with the Meta Quest 3 headset and blurry visuals due to lens distance. While the study was limited to a student capstone timeframe and in scale, findings suggest VR simulations have strong potential as medical training tools.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEngineering Technology and MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207