Validation of novel and objective measures of microsurgical skill: Hand‐motion analysis and stereoscopic visual acuity
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
Our purposes were: 1) to establish the predictive validity of stereoscopic visual acuity and microsurgical performance, and 2) to establish the construct and concurrent validity of hand-motion analysis as an objective and sensitive measure of microsurgical performance. Using a surgical microscope, 50 surgical residents completed a standardized microsurgical suturing task at baseline and following microsurgical training. Microsurgical performance was evaluated by blinded, expert microsurgeons using global rating scales. Measures of stereoscopic visual acuity and hand-motion analysis were correlated with expert global rating scores. Global rating scores correlated significantly with number of hand movements (r = -0.47, P = 0.001) and hand-travel distance (r = -0.37, P = 0.008). Economy of hand-motion improved significantly following microsurgical training (number of hand movements, P = 0.046; hand-travel distance, P = 0.04). Measures of stereoscopic visual acuity did not correlate significantly with global rating scores. Hand-motion analysis appears to be an objective and sensitive instrument for assessing microsurgical performance, with evidence of both concurrent and construct validity. The predictive validity of stereoscopic visual acuity and microsurgical performance remains unclear.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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