ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2022
Relationship between psychological characteristics, personality traits, and training on performance in a neonatal resuscitation scenario: A machine learning based analysis.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Artificial Intelligence in cardiopulmonary resuscitation training - A scoping review.Resuscitation plus · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In life-threatening emergency events, prompt decision-making and accurate reactions are essential for saving a human's life. Some of these skills can be improved by regular simulation trainings. However, besides these factors, individual characteristics may play a significant role in the patients' outcome after a resuscitation event. This study aimed to differentiate personality characteristics of team members who take responsibility for their actions, contextualizing the effect of training on resuscitation performance. Methods: Six hundred and two third-year medical students were asked to answer psychological and personality questionnaires. Fifty-five of them performed in a neonatal simulation resuscitation scenario. To assess participants' performances in the NLS scenario, we used a scenario-based designed NLS checklist. A machine learning design was utilized to better understand the interaction of psychological characteristics and training. The first model aimed to understand how to differentiate between people who take responsibility for their actions vs. those who do not. In a second model, the goal was to understand the relevance of training by contextualizing the effect of training to other important psychological and personality characteristics like locus of control, anxiety, emotion regulation, openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Results: No statistically significant differences were found for psychological characteristics between the training group and the no training group. However, as expected, differences were noted in favor of the training group for performance and within gender for psychological characteristics. When correcting for all these information in a model, anxiety and gender were the most important factors associated with taking responsibility for an action, while training was the only relevant factor in explaining performance during a neonatal resuscitation scenario. Conclusion: Training had a significantly stronger effect on performance in medical students in a neonatal resuscitation scenario than individual characteristics such as demographics, personality, and trait anxiety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.