Validation of a Global Assessment of Arthroscopic Skills in a Cadaveric Knee Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether a global assessment of arthroscopic skills was valid for blinded assessment of cadaveric diagnostic knee arthroscopy. METHODS: A global skills assessment for arthroscopy was created using a published theory of the development of expertise. Faculty surgeons, fellows, and residents were consented and enrolled in this institutional review board-approved validation study. All participants were oriented to the equipment and procedures for diagnostic arthroscopy of the knee. After reviewing the anatomic structures to be visualized, participants were allowed 10 minutes to complete a diagnostic arthroscopy of the knee. The hands and arthroscopic view were recorded during this attempt. Resident participants completed a second filmed diagnostic arthroscopy 1 week after the initial attempt. Five blinded reviewers watched the synchronized videos and assessed arthroscopic skills with a procedure-specific checklist and the newly developed global skills assessment. The agreement between reviewers was determined by intraclass correlation coefficient. Internal consistency was determined with Cronbach's α. Test-retest reliability was measured by correlating repeated arthroscopies by residents. The ability of the global assessment to discriminate skill levels was determined with between-group Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: The agreement between global assessment scores was strong (I.C.C. = 0.80, 95% C.I. 0.68-0.92). The internal consistency of evaluations was excellent (Cronbach's α = 0.97), and the test-retest reliability was strong (r = 0.52). The global assessment score was shown to be able to discriminate between skill levels by an analysis of variance indicating the difference in means among the various levels of training (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The Objective Assessment of Arthroscopic Skills is a useful adjunct to arthroscopic educators and learners and could be used for in-training evaluations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The Objective Assessment of Arthroscopic Skills is an instrument that can be employed to measure the impact of skills curricula, including but not limited to simulation.
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 | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".