Cited by 15Simulation-Based Education in HealthcareSurgical Simulation and TrainingInnovations in Medical Education

Deep Learning Model for Automated Trainee Assessment During High-Fidelity Simulation

Siddiqui, Asad, Zhao, Zhoujie, Pan, Chuer, Rudzicz, Frank, Everett, Tobias·2023·Academic Medicine

Abstract

Problem: Implementation of competency-based medical education has necessitated more frequent trainee assessments. Use of simulation as an assessment tool is limited by access to trained examiners, cost, and concerns with interrater reliability. Developing an automated tool for pass/fail assessment of trainees in simulation could improve accessibility and quality assurance of assessments. This study aimed to develop an automated assessment model using deep learning techniques to assess performance of anesthesiology trainees in a simulated critical event. Approach: The authors retrospectively analyzed anaphylaxis simulation videos to train and validate a deep learning model. They used an anaphylactic shock simulation video database from an established simulation curriculum, integrating a convenience sample of 52 usable videos. The core part of the model, developed between July 2019 and July 2020, is a bidirectional transformer encoder. Outcomes: The main outcome was the F1 score, accuracy, recall, and precision of the automated assessment model in analyzing pass/fail of trainees in simulation videos. Five models were developed and evaluated. The strongest model was model 1 with an accuracy of 71% and an F1 score of 0.68. Next Steps: The authors demonstrated the feasibility of developing a deep learning model from a simulation database that can be used for automated assessment of medical trainees in a simulated anaphylaxis scenario. The important next steps are to (1) integrate a larger simulation dataset to improve the accuracy of the model; (2) assess the accuracy of the model on alternative anaphylaxis simulations, additional medical disciplines, and alternative medical education evaluation modalities; and (3) gather feedback from education leadership and clinician educators surrounding the perceived strengths and weaknesses of deep learning models for simulation assessment. Overall, this novel approach for performance prediction has broad implications in medical education and assessment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/acm.0000000000005290

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Siddiqui, A., Zhao, Z., Pan, C., Rudzicz, F., & Everett, T.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Siddiqui, Asad
Venue
Academic Medicine
Published
2023-06-05
Volume
98
Issue
11
Pages
1274-1277
ISSN
  • 1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-808X
OpenAlex
W4379600149
Cited by
15
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1
FWCI
2.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Medical Council of Canada (MCC-8/1920, Asad Siddiqui)
  • Society for Technology in Anesthesia (Asad Siddiqui)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Simulation-Based Education in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical Simulation and Training
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
Keywords
automated assessment, high-fidelity simulation, competency-based medical education, medical education assessment
MeSH terms
High Fidelity Simulation Training, Deep Learning, Anaphylaxis, Humans, Retrospective Studies, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review