Measuring Surgical Competency in Facial Trauma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical education is in a period of significant change. Assessment of surgical competency is imprecise compared with cognitive knowledge and judgment. A surgical competency measurement tool may be useful for plastic surgery training programs and certification societies. We present a validation study of a novel measurement instrument for arch bar placement and dental wire handling. METHODS: An Arch Bar Placement Assessment Scale (ABPAS) was created via consensus by 2 craniofacial and 2 maxillofacial surgeons. Residents and faculty members of plastic and maxillofacial surgery (n = 20) then placed an arch bar on the lower jaw of a skull model. Performances were video recorded without revealing identities. Two study groups were created based on subjects experience level: group 1 (n = 10) previously placed fewer than 25 arch bars; group 2 (n = 10) previously placed more than 25 arch bars. Two craniofacial surgeons used the ABPAS to blindly grade surgical performance. RESULTS: The ABPAS consisted of a 48-point rating scale that included a 23-point task-specific work list and a 25-point global rating scale. Pearson coefficient showed limited intraobserver (P = 0.97) and interobserver (P = 0.95) variance of test scores. The ABPAS demonstrated superior performance in group 2 in the task-specific work list [12.6 (5.5) vs 17.6 (1.5), P = 0.02], global rating scale [17.4 (4.4) vs 22 (2.1), P = 0.01], and ABPAS score [30 (9.8) and 39.6 (3.2), P = 0.01]. CONCLUSIONS: The ABPAS is a novel measurement tool which assesses technical surgical skill and can identify surgical competency in arch bar placement and dental wire handling. This tool may have future use in residency training and continuing education.
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) | 0.002 | 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".