Effect of Two Instrument Designs on Laparoscopic Skills Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether laparoscopic skills performance is affected by instrument design. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized crossover study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Veterinarians (n = 14) with variable laparoscopic experience. METHODS: Laparoscopic skills performance was assessed with the McGill Inanimate System for Training and Evaluation of Laparoscopic Skills (MISTELS). Participants performed 3 MISTELS tasks twice during 2 sessions (4 tests total). Each set of instruments (set A, B) was used once during each session, and instrument order was switched between the first and second sessions. Surgeons were randomly allocated to either the AB-BA or the BA-AB sequence in a balanced fashion. Scores were compared between instrument sets A and B. RESULTS: Overall, participants performed better when using set A compared with set B. This difference was most striking in the pattern-cutting task (which used scissors and graspers), less convincing in the peg transfer task (which used 2 graspers), and nonexistent in the ligature loop task (which used 1 grasper and 1 pretied ligature loop). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic skills performance, as assessed by MISTELS testing, is affected by instrument design.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".