Outcome errors are not necessary for learning orthopedic bone drilling.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: When learning orthopedic bone drilling, a surgical trainee relies on internally generated and externally provided feedback. The quality and type of feedback often varies in the clinical environment, thus affecting skill acquisition. We investigated the effect of feedback on technical error (plunging) when novice surgical trainees learned bone drilling. METHODS: Medical students (n = 22) and experienced postgraduate surgical residents (n = 4) drilled bicortical holes in a lamb femur under 1 of 3 feedback conditions: no feedback, self-generated feedback and externally generated feedback. Novices performed a retention test (10 bicortical holes) 1 week after the initial training. We measured plunge depth, the clinically relevant outcome, using computer-assisted methods. RESULTS: During the initial experiment, the plunges of novices who were exposed to external feedback were similar to those of residents in the experienced group. Novices in the self-generated feedback group plunged more than those in the external feedback group or those in the experienced group (p = 0.002). All novices plunged similarly on the retention test, a measure of true skill learning. CONCLUSION: When learning bicortical bone drilling, feedback related to plunging is not necessary to achieve a competent level of performance. In addition, although external feedback facilitates the achievement of better outcomes, it does not improve learning. It is suggested that to minimize plunging, trainees should learn how to optimize their drilling through the bone rather than how to prevent the plunge.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".