MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Objective assessment of surgical competence in gynaecological laparoscopy: development and validation of a procedure‐specific rating scale

2008· article· en· W2171675603 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersGentofte Hospital
KeywordsInter-rater reliabilityCohen's kappaRating scaleKappaConstruct validityMedicineObstetrics and gynaecologyRank correlationCompetence (human resources)PsychologyPhysical therapyPsychometricsMedical physicsStatisticsClinical psychologyMathematicsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop a global- and a procedure-specific rating scale based on a well-validated generic model (objective structured assessment of technical skills) for assessment of technical skills in laparoscopic gynaecology. Furthermore, we aimed to investigate the construct validity and the interrater agreement (IRA) of the rating scale. We investigated both the gamma coefficient (Kendall's rank correlation), which is a measure of the strength of dependence between observations, and the kappa value for each of the ten individual items included in the rating scale. DESIGN: Prospective cohort, observer-blinded study. SETTING: Departments of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in Zealand, Denmark. POPULATION: Twenty one gynaecologists or gynaecological trainees. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-one video recordings of right side laparoscopic salpingectomies were collected prospectively, eight from novices (defined as <10 procedures), seven from intermediate experienced (20-50 procedures) and six from experts (> 200 procedures). All operations were performed by the same operative principles and using a standardised technique. The recordings were analysed by two independent, blinded observers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Construct validity of the rating scale based on operative performance (median of total score) and interrater reliability. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the three groups: median score of novices 24.00 versus intermediate 29.50 versus expert 39.50, P < 0.003) The IRA was 0.83 overall. The gamma correlation coefficient was 0.91. The kappa values varied from 0.510-0.933 for each of the individual items of the rating scale. CONCLUSIONS: The procedure-specific rating scale for laparoscopic salpingectomy is a valid and reliable tool for assessment of technical skills in gynaecological laparoscopy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it