Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills for the Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate Procedure: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".