Mastery Learning Guided by Artificial Intelligence Is Superior to Directed Self-Regulated Learning in Flexible Bronchoscopy Training: An RCT.

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q2 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM Respiration Pub Date : 2024-10-17 DOI:10.1159/000542045
Kristoffer Mazanti Cold, Wei Wei, Kaladerhan Agbontaen, Suveer Singh, Lars Konge
{"title":"Mastery Learning Guided by Artificial Intelligence Is Superior to Directed Self-Regulated Learning in Flexible Bronchoscopy Training: An RCT.","authors":"Kristoffer Mazanti Cold, Wei Wei, Kaladerhan Agbontaen, Suveer Singh, Lars Konge","doi":"10.1159/000542045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Simulation-based training has proven effective for learning flexible bronchoscopy. However, no studies have tested the efficacy of training toward established proficiency criteria, i.e., mastery learning (ML). We wish to test the effectiveness of ML compared to directed self-regulated learning (DSRL) on novice bronchoscopists' end-of-training performance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a standardized simulated setting, novices without prior bronchoscopy experience were trained using an artificial intelligence (AI) guidance system that automatically recognizes the bronchial segments. They were randomized into two groups: the ML group and the DSRL group. The ML group was trained until they completed two procedures meeting the proficiency targets: 18 inspected segments, 18 structured progressions, <120-s procedure time. The DSRL group was trained until they no longer perceived any additional benefits from training. Both groups then did a finalizing test, without the AI guidance enabled.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 24 participants completed the study, with 12 in each group. Both groups had a high mean number of inspected segments (ML = 17.2 segments, DSRL = 17.3 segments, p = 0.85) and structured progressions (ML = 15.5 progressions, DSRL = 14.8 progressions, p = 0.58), but the ML group performed the test procedure significantly faster (ML = 107 s, DSRL = 180 s, p < 0.001). The ML did not spend significantly longer time training (ML = 114 min, DSRL = 109 min, p = 0.84).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ML is a very efficient training form allowing novice trainees to learn how to perform a thorough, systematic, and quick flexible bronchoscopy. ML does not require longer time spent training compared to DSRL, and we therefore recommend training of future bronchoscopists by this method.</p>","PeriodicalId":21048,"journal":{"name":"Respiration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Respiration","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000542045","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Simulation-based training has proven effective for learning flexible bronchoscopy. However, no studies have tested the efficacy of training toward established proficiency criteria, i.e., mastery learning (ML). We wish to test the effectiveness of ML compared to directed self-regulated learning (DSRL) on novice bronchoscopists' end-of-training performance.

Methods: In a standardized simulated setting, novices without prior bronchoscopy experience were trained using an artificial intelligence (AI) guidance system that automatically recognizes the bronchial segments. They were randomized into two groups: the ML group and the DSRL group. The ML group was trained until they completed two procedures meeting the proficiency targets: 18 inspected segments, 18 structured progressions, <120-s procedure time. The DSRL group was trained until they no longer perceived any additional benefits from training. Both groups then did a finalizing test, without the AI guidance enabled.

Results: A total of 24 participants completed the study, with 12 in each group. Both groups had a high mean number of inspected segments (ML = 17.2 segments, DSRL = 17.3 segments, p = 0.85) and structured progressions (ML = 15.5 progressions, DSRL = 14.8 progressions, p = 0.58), but the ML group performed the test procedure significantly faster (ML = 107 s, DSRL = 180 s, p < 0.001). The ML did not spend significantly longer time training (ML = 114 min, DSRL = 109 min, p = 0.84).

Conclusions: ML is a very efficient training form allowing novice trainees to learn how to perform a thorough, systematic, and quick flexible bronchoscopy. ML does not require longer time spent training compared to DSRL, and we therefore recommend training of future bronchoscopists by this method.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在柔性支气管镜培训中,人工智能指导下的掌握学习优于指导下的自我调节学习--一项RCT研究。
介绍:模拟培训已被证明对学习柔性支气管镜检查有效。然而,还没有研究测试过按照既定的熟练标准(即掌握学习(ML))进行培训的效果。我们希望测试掌握学习(ML)与指导性自我调节学习(DSRL)相比,对支气管镜新手培训结束后表现的影响:在标准化的模拟环境中,没有支气管镜检查经验的新手使用人工智能(AI)引导系统进行训练,该系统可自动识别支气管节段。他们被随机分为两组:ML 组和 DSRL 组。ML 组一直训练到完成两个符合熟练目标的手术为止:18 个检查节段、18 个结构化进展、120 秒手术时间。DSRL 组一直训练到他们不再感觉到训练带来的额外好处为止。然后,两组都进行了最终测试,但没有启用人工智能指导。结果:24 名参与者完成了研究,每组 12 人。两组的平均检查片段数(ML=17.2 个片段,DSRL=17.3 个片段,P=.85)和结构化进度(ML=15.5 个进度,DSRL=14.8 个进度,P=.58)都很高,但 ML 组完成测试程序的速度明显更快(ML=107 秒,DSRL=180 秒,P<.001)。ML组的训练时间没有明显延长(ML=114分钟,DSRL=109分钟,P=.84):ML是一种非常有效的培训形式,可让新学员学习如何进行彻底、系统和快速的柔性支气管镜检查。与 DSRL 相比,ML 无需花费更长的培训时间,因此我们建议未来的支气管镜医师采用这种方法进行培训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Respiration
Respiration 医学-呼吸系统
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
5.40%
发文量
82
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: ''Respiration'' brings together the results of both clinical and experimental investigations on all aspects of the respiratory system in health and disease. Clinical improvements in the diagnosis and treatment of chest and lung diseases are covered, as are the latest findings in physiology, biochemistry, pathology, immunology and pharmacology. The journal includes classic features such as editorials that accompany original articles in clinical and basic science research, reviews and letters to the editor. Further sections are: Technical Notes, The Eye Catcher, What’s Your Diagnosis?, The Opinion Corner, New Drugs in Respiratory Medicine, New Insights from Clinical Practice and Guidelines. ''Respiration'' is the official journal of the Swiss Society for Pneumology (SGP) and also home to the European Association for Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology (EABIP), which occupies a dedicated section on Interventional Pulmonology in the journal. This modern mix of different features and a stringent peer-review process by a dedicated editorial board make ''Respiration'' a complete guide to progress in thoracic medicine.
期刊最新文献
Poor correlation between diaphragm ultrasound and invasive gold standard technique derived respiratory muscle strength assessment in patients after hospitalization for COVID-19. A multidimensional approach to the management of patients in prolonged weaning from mechanical ventilation - the concept of treatable traits - a narrative review. Successful endobronchial valve placement in the treatment of persistent bronchopleural fistula and empyema allows the avoidance of right completion pneumonectomy. A High-Intensity versus Moderate-Intensity exercise training program in Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency-related COPD (IMAC): a randomized, controlled trial. Mastery Learning Guided by Artificial Intelligence Is Superior to Directed Self-Regulated Learning in Flexible Bronchoscopy Training: An RCT.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1