MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327746826 · doi:10.1089/end.2016.0270

Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills for the Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate Procedure: A Pilot Study

2016· article· en· W2327746826 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yasser A. Noureldin, Mohamed A. Elkoushy, Mehdi Aloosh, Serge Carrier, Mostafa Elhilali, Sero Andonian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endourology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstatectomyUrologyReliability (semiconductor)Construct validityProstateMedical physicsSurgeryInternal medicinePatient satisfaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) is a frequently performed procedure by postgraduate trainees (PGTs). However, there is no PVP-specific objective assessment tool to evaluate the acquisition of PVP skills. The aim of the present study was to develop and validate an objective structured assessment of technical skills tool for the PVP procedure (PVP-OSATS). METHODS: This study was conducted in two phases. Phase I included the development of PVP-OSATS and assessment of its reliability and construct validity. Panel discussion among experts led to the development of the PVP-OSATS tool with 12 parameters, each scored from 1 (worst) to 5 (best) with a maximum score of 60. Laser prostatectomy experts and PGTs from postgraduate years (PGY) 4 and 5 were recruited. Inter-rater reliability, using Cohen's and Fleiss's kappa, was calculated for all parameters. To assess for construct validity, PGTs were compared with experts. Phase II included assessment of the concurrent validity of this novel tool. This was performed by recruiting Quebec urology PGTs between PGY-3 and -5 to test their PVP skills during the semiannual objective structured clinical examination using the validated GreenLight(™) simulator. RESULTS: During phase I,116 intraoperative PVP-OSATS assessments were collected; 102 for PGTs and 14 for experts. Cohen's and Fleiss's kappa was adequate (k ≥ 0.6) for all 12 parameters, confirming adequate inter-rater reliability. There was significant difference between PGTs and experts in all PVP-OSATS parameters (p ≤ 0.01) except in respect to anatomical landmarks and instrument damage. During phase II, there was significant positive correlation between PVP-OSATS scores inside the operating room and global scores obtained by the GreenLight simulator (r = 0.814; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study reports inter-rater reliability, construct, and concurrent validity of PVP-OSATS as a novel PVP-specific objective assessment tool.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of EndourologySame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207