Student Perceptions of the Use of a Laser Pointer for Intra-Operative Guidance in Feline Castration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In veterinary clinical education, students perform surgery under guided supervision. This study aimed to determine if students' perception of how well they understood verbal guidance could be improved by using a laser pointer during feline castration. It was assumed that a teacher's use of a laser pointer could help students identify structures of importance during surgery. The hypothesis was that use of a laser pointer would improve student understanding of verbal guidance during surgery. Eighteen privately owned male cats were electively neutered by fourth- and fifth-year veterinary students at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden. Each student performed orchiectomy on one cat. One testis was removed while the student received verbal guidance combined with a laser pointer, and the other testis was removed while the student received only verbal guidance. The use of a laser pointer alternated between first and second testis. After surgery, students rated how well they understood verbal guidance on a visual-analog scale (100 mm) for each instructional method. The two ratings were compared in a student's two-sided t-test. The median score with or without guidance with a laser pointer was 81 (59-96) and 54 (25-86), respectively (p<.001). This study showed that laser pointers enhanced verbal guidance given to students during surgery. The suggested mechanism of explanation is that the technology enabled a more precise guidance of location and identification of anatomic structures.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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".