Validation of an Effective, Easy-to-Make Hemostasis Simulator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to describe the construction method of a cost-effective, easy-to-make hemostasis simulator and to compare its effectiveness as a training tool to cadaver training. The simulator is made of materials commonly found in hospitals and clinics. These include a column manometer, a 500-ml saline bag, two intravenous fluid lines, a three-way stopcock, and a 6-mm-diameter Penrose drain. The device was tested on 10 final-year veterinary students. All participants tied 40 knots on the simulator and 40 knots on equine jejunal arteries sourced from a local abattoir. They were then asked to fill out a questionnaire comparing both methods. Participants assigned an overall assessment median score of 8.5/10 to the simulator and of 6.2/10 to cadaver practice. The simulator provided reliable haptic feedback, giving trainees a lifelike feel very close to that experienced when actually closing a blood vessel. In addition, it was effective in objectively evaluating students' ability to place ligatures on vessels. After adequate training, students' skills had significantly improved, alongside their confidence in placing hemostatic sutures. This proves our model is also useful in teaching basic open-surgery skills. Finally, its low production cost makes it ideally suited for self-practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".