Can We Predict Technical Aptitude?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify background characteristics and cognitive tests that may predict surgical trainees' future technical performance, and therefore be used to supplement existing surgical residency selection criteria. BACKGROUND: Assessment of technical skills is not commonly incorporated as part of the selection process for surgical trainees in North America. Emerging evidence, however, suggests that not all trainees are capable of reaching technical competence. Therefore, incorporating technical aptitude into selection processes may prove useful. METHODS: A systematic search was carried out of the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase online databases to identify all studies that assessed associations between surrogate markers of innate technical abilities in surgical trainees, and whether these abilities correlate with technical performance. The quality of each study was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. RESULTS: A total of 8035 records were identified. After screening by title, abstract, and full text, 52 studies were included. Very few surrogate markers were found to predict technical performance. Significant associations with technical performance were seen for 1 of 23 participant-reported surrogate markers, 2 of 25 visual spatial tests, and 2 of 19 dexterity tests. The assessment of trainee Basic Performance Resources predicted technical performance in 62% and 75% of participants. CONCLUSIONS: To date, no single test has been shown to reliably predict the technical performance of surgical trainees. Strategies that rely on assessing multiple innate abilities, their interaction, and their relationship with technical skill may ultimately be more likely to serve as reliable predictors of future surgical performance.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".