MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2436524487 · doi:10.1097/sih.0000000000000124

A Novel Mammoplasty Part-Task Trainer for Simulation of Breast Augmentation

2016· article· en· W2436524487 on OpenAlexaff
Roy Kazan, Brigitte Courteau, Shantale Cyr, Thomas M. Hemmerling, Mirko S. Gilardino

Bibliographic record

VenueSimulation in Healthcare The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrainerMedicineCertificationPlastic surgeryTask (project management)SurgeryLikert scaleScale (ratio)Medical physicsPhysical therapyMedical educationComputer sciencePsychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Since the introduction of competency-based education and the restriction of residents' working hours, simulator-aided training has obtained increasing attention for its role in teaching and assessing resident surgical skills. Within plastic surgery training, such simulators would be particularly useful for aesthetic surgery procedures such as augmentation mammoplasty where residents have fewer opportunities for hands-on experience. The aims of this study were to develop a part-task trainer that allows plastic surgery trainees to acquire skills necessary for augmentation mammoplasty and to assess its potential value as a training tool. METHODS: The mammoplasty part-task trainer (MPT) was designed to have a reusable and rigid thorax base and "soft" disposable layers to mimic the skin and subcutaneous tissues. A mock unilateral subglandular breast augmentation was performed by 4 board-certified plastic surgeons using standard instruments and scored using a 0 to 5 Likert scale where a score of 5 was considered the most satisfactory. RESULTS: Four board-certified plastic surgeons participated in the survey. On a scale of 0 to 5, the MPT's "value" as a training tool, "relevance to practice," and "physical attributes" scored highest, with mean values of 4.5, 4.3, and 4.1, respectively. "Realism of experience," "ability to perform tasks," and "realism of material" scored 3.9, 3.8, and 3.7, respectively. The observed average of the "global assessment" of the MPT was 4.3. The cost of fabrication of the MPT was estimated at approximately Can $113. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes a preliminary novel mammoplasty task trainer that was highly valued by experts as a potential training 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.709

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations21
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSimulation in Healthcare The Journal of the Society for Simulation in HealthcareSame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207