The Impact of Distraction on Laparoscopic Skills in Veterinary Medical Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of distraction on the performance of a simulator-based laparoscopic task in veterinary students. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized trial. SAMPLE POPULATION: Years 1-4 veterinary students (n=41). METHODS: Participants repeated a simulated laparoscopic peg transfer task to eliminate any learning effects and were subsequently randomized to receive either a cognitive (double-digit addition questions, n=21) or sensory distraction (dogs barking and anesthesia monitor alerts, n=20). The laparoscopic task scores were compared between baseline and in the presence and absence of each distraction. The number of addition questions attempted, and the number of questions answered correctly in 1 minute were compared between baseline and during a concurrent laparoscopic task. RESULTS: Baseline laparoscopic task scores were not significantly different between groups (P=.09). Laparoscopic task scores were significantly lower than baseline when performed with the cognitive distraction (P<.001) and significantly higher than baseline when performed with the sensory distraction (P=.005). Participants undergoing cognitive distraction attempted significantly fewer addition questions (P<.001) and answered significantly fewer addition questions correctly (P<.001) when a concurrent laparoscopic task was performed. CONCLUSION: Cognitive distraction had a negative impact on the performance of a laparoscopic task in this cohort of veterinary students, whereas sensory distraction had a positive effect.
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".