A multi‐centre survey on the team concept of instrument design in gyn‐endoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study is to evaluate the current role of gynaecologists in the design of gynaecological endoscopic instruments. The study is a cross -sectional observational study conducted in the UK, the USA, Canada & Germany. Each leader of the Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology in 1014 hospitals in the above countries participated in the study. The current role in conceptual design and the expression of design concepts were measured. One hundred and eighty-four centres were analysed due to a Pareto effect. 91% admit that a better conceptual design can improve the overall safety of gynaecological endoscopy. 98% believe the design team should include engineers, gynaecologists and gynaecological ancillary staff. Only 18% of the centres have been involved in the design of gynaecological endoscopic instruments. A brilliant response came from the University of Michigan where collaboration already exists between the gynaecological minimally invasive surgeons and the school of engineering. The current role of gynaecologists in the design of gynaecological endoscopic instruments is passive because of the difficulty with design expression rather than conceptual design. The respondents therefore expressed the need for a design team to improve the ergonomics of endoscopic instruments and thereby improve the overall safety of gynaecological endoscopic surgery. The team concept of instrument design, taken to its logical conclusion, leads to the proposition of a global design team by 2005 so as to involve all the stakeholders of gyn-endoscopic instruments.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".