Randomized clinical trial to evaluate mental practice in enhancing advanced laparoscopic surgical performance
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mental practice, the cognitive rehearsal of a task without physical movement, is known to enhance performance in sports and music. Investigation of this technique in surgery has been limited to basic operations. The purpose of this study was to develop mental practice scripts, and to assess their effect on advanced laparoscopic skills and surgeon stress levels in a crisis scenario. METHODS: Twenty senior surgical trainees were randomized to either conventional training or mental practice groups, the latter being trained by an expert performance psychologist. Participants' skills were assessed while performing a porcine laparoscopic jejunojejunostomy as part of a crisis scenario in a simulated operating room, using the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill (OSATS) and bariatric OSATS (BOSATS) instruments. Objective and subjective stress parameters were measured, as well as non-technical skills using the Non-Technical Skills for Surgeons rating tool. RESULTS: An improvement in OSATS (P = 0.003) and BOSATS (P = 0.003) scores was seen in the mental practice group compared with the conventional training group. Seven of ten trainees improved their technical performance during the crisis scenario, whereas four of the ten conventionally trained participants deteriorated. Mental imagery ability improved significantly following mental practice training (P = 0.011), but not in the conventional group (P = 0.083). No differences in objective or subjective stress levels or non-technical skills were evident. CONCLUSION: Mental practice improves technical performance for advanced laparoscopic tasks in the simulated operating room, and allows trainees to maintain or improve their performance despite added stress.
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 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 | 0.020 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it