MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Consensus-Based Framework for Design, Validation, and Implementation of Simulation-Based Training Curricula in Surgery

2012· article· en· W2008746003 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American College of Surgeons · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLikert scaleCurriculumDelphi methodMedical educationDelphiCronbach's alphaMedical physicsPsychometricsComputer sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Simulation-based training can improve technical and nontechnical skills in surgery. To date, there is no consensus on the principles for design, validation, and implementation of a simulation-based surgical training curriculum. The aim of this study was to define such principles and formulate them into an interoperable framework using international expert consensus based on the Delphi method. METHODS: Literature was reviewed, 4 international experts were queried, and consensus conference of national and international members of surgical societies was held to identify the items for the Delphi survey. Forty-five international experts in surgical education were invited to complete the online survey by ranking each item on a Likert scale from 1 to 5. Consensus was predefined as Cronbach's α ≥0.80. Items that 80% of experts ranked as ≥4 were included in the final framework. RESULTS: Twenty-four international experts with training in general surgery (n = 11), orthopaedic surgery (n = 2), obstetrics and gynecology (n = 3), urology (n = 1), plastic surgery (n = 1), pediatric surgery (n = 1), otolaryngology (n = 1), vascular surgery (n = 1), military (n = 1), and doctorate-level educators (n = 2) completed the iterative online Delphi survey. Consensus among participants was achieved after one round of the survey (Cronbach's α = 0.91). The final framework included predevelopment analysis; cognitive, psychomotor, and team-based training; curriculum validation evaluation and improvement; and maintenance of training. CONCLUSIONS: The Delphi methodology allowed for determination of international expert consensus on the principles for design, validation, and implementation of a simulation-based surgical training curriculum. These principles were formulated into a framework that can be used internationally across surgical specialties as a step-by-step guide for the development and validation of future simulation-based training curricula.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it