GOALS-Incisional Hernia: A Valid Assessment of Simulated Laparoscopic Incisional Hernia Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) is a valid and reliable measure of basic, non-procedure-specific laparoscopic skills. GOALS-incisional hernia (GOALS-IH) was developed to evaluate performance of laparoscopic incisional hernia repair (LIHR). The purpose of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of GOALS-IH during LIHR simulation. GOALS-IH assesses 7 domains with a maximum score of 35. A total of 12 experienced surgeons and 10 novices performed LIHR on the Surgical Abdominal Wall simulator. Performance was assessed by a trained observer and by self-assessment using GOALS-IH, basic GOALS and a visual analog scale (VAS) for overall competence. Both interrater reliability and internal consistency were high (.76 and .95 respectively). Experienced surgeons had higher mean GOALS-IH scores than novices (32.3 ± 2 versus 22.7 ± 5). There was excellent correlation between GOALS-IH and other measures of performance (GOALS r = .93 and VAS r = .93). GOALS-IH is easy to use, valid and reliable for assessment of simulated LIHR.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".