Impact of cognitive imaging and sex differences on the development of laparoscopic suturing skills.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The introduction of noninvasive laparoscopic surgery has raised concerns about appropriate teaching techniques for medical students considering surgery as a specialization. The principal aim of this study was to determine the effect, between the sexes, of cognitive imaging as a teaching method in the context of learning a surgical technique. METHODS: A randomized treatment-control sample of 42 medical student volunteers was used to test the effect of cognitive imaging on performance and on traditional instructional techniques to help medical students acquire suturing skills specific to laparoscopic surgery. RESULTS: Repeated-measures analysis of variance showed no significant effect for the use of cognitive imaging (F1,40 = 0.97, p > 0.05). Males tended to perform better than females in completing tasks that required the use of visual-spatial manipulation of the instruments within a simulated laparoscopic environment (F1,40 = 5.08, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These results, which are in concordance with other research findings, indicate that females generally have lower visual-spatial abilities than males. Enhanced performance for both sexes, however, increases rapidly with practice. Other than verbal one-on-one instruction, males on average rank instructional approaches that are applied and visual higher than do females.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".