Efficacy of Novel Robotic Camera vs a Standard Laparoscopic Camera
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To improve visualization during minimal access surgery, a novel robotic camera has been developed. The prototype camera is totally insertable, has 5 degrees of freedom, and is remotely controlled. This study compared the performance of laparoscopic surgeons using both a laparoscope and the robotic camera. The MISTELS (McGill Inanimate System for the Training and Evaluation of Laparoscopic Skill) tasks were used to test six laparoscopic fellows and attending surgeons. Half the surgeons used the laparoscope first and half used the robotic camera first. Total scores from the MISTELS sessions in which the laparoscope was used were compared with the sessions in which the robotic camera was used and then analyzed with a paired t test (P < .05 was considered significant). All six surgeons tested showed no significant difference in their MISTELS task performance on the robotic camera compared with the standard laparoscopic camera. The mean MISTELS score of 963 for all subjects who used a laparoscope and camera was not significantly different than the mean score of 904 for the robotic camera (P = .17). This new robotic camera prototype allows for equivalent performance on a validated laparoscopic assessment tool when compared with performance using a standard laparoscope.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".