MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117131388 · doi:10.3138/jvme-2024-0163

A Low-Cost Sonographic Canine Simulator for Pericardiocentesis Training

2025· article· en· W7117131388 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Madison Hillstead, Søren Boysen, Nicholas Perewernycky, Mark Ungrin, Katrine Gillett, Julie Ménard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Medical Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPericarditis and Cardiac Tamponade
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidence intervalPericardiocentesisLikert scaleWilcoxon signed-rank testPericardial effusionCatheter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pericardiocentesis is traditionally taught in clinical settings, which can be stressful. This study aimed to create a low-cost sonographic simulator to improve novice veterinarians' confidence in performing pericardiocentesis. We hypothesized that experienced clinicians would find the simulator realistic, and that novice confidence would improve following simulator practice. Human ethics approval was obtained. The simulator was constructed using ballistic gel, silicon foam, and a 3D-printed spine with ribs. A tennis ball within a balloon, both filled with water, simulated pericardial effusion (PE). Experts, defined as having performed more than five pericardiocentesis procedures and having more than 3 years of emergency experience, assessed the simulator's realism using a five-point Likert scale. Novice confidence levels were surveyed before and after using the simulator. The data were analyzed for normality. Confidence levels were compared using paired t-tests or Wilcoxon tests. Experts rated the sonographic appearance of PE as very realistic (strongly agree to agree) but found the tactile feel of catheter advancement to be somewhat limited (agree to neither agree nor disagree). The comparability to performing pericardiocentesis on a live canine was rated as realistic (agree). Interns showed a significant increase in confidence in their ability to perform pericardiocentesis on live patients ( p = .03), sonographic visualization and guidance of the catheter ( p = .02), and correct catheter placement ( p = .02). The simulator realistically simulates natural canine PE and improves novice confidence in performing pericardiocentesis. Further research is needed to determine if these skills translate to clinical settings.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.562

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 designOther design
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Medical EducationSame topicPericarditis and Cardiac TamponadeFrench-language works237,207