Maintaining Forward View of the Surgical Site for Best Endoscopic Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endoscopic surgery performed through patients' natural orifices (NOTES procedures) often require some degree of retroflexion of the operating system. This can cause a misalignment between the displayed image and the actual work plane, leading to performance difficulties. This study investigated the impact of retroflexion on task performance in a simulated environment. Surgeons were required to perform an aiming and pointing task under two experimental conditions: forward-view vs. retroflexed-view. Results showed that both expert and novice surgeons required significantly longer time for completing the task when the scope was retroflexed, compared to when the scope faced forwards. Results address the importance of careful selection of the surgical approach to avoid image retroflexion. Further analysis revealed that the novices were more vulnerable than experts to image distortion with the retroflexed view. This addresses the necessity for surgeons to go through extensive endoscopic training to overcome the visual-motor challenges before they can perform NOTES procedures safely and effectively.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".