Training on an inexpensive tablet-based device is equally effective as on a standard laparoscopic box trainer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to assess whether an inexpensive tablet-based box trainer (TBT) is at least equally effective compared with a standard box trainer (SBT) to learn basic laparoscopic skills (BLS). BLS training outside the operating room has been shown to be beneficial for surgical residency. However, simulation trainers are expensive and are not consistently available in all training centers. Therefore, TBT and other homemade box trainers were developed. METHODS: Medical students were randomized to either a TBT or an SBT and trained 4 fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) tasks for 1 hour twice a week for 4 weeks. A baseline test before the training period and a posttraining test were performed. All students then completed a questionnaire to assess their assigned box trainer. The primary outcome measure was the improvement in total test scores. Improvement in the scores for the 4 individual FLS tasks was chosen as a secondary outcome measure. RESULTS: Thirty-two medical students were recruited. Baseline test scores did not differ significantly between the groups. BLS improved significantly in both groups for the total score and for all 4 tasks separately. Participants in the TBT group showed a greater improvement of total scores than those in the SBT group, although this did not reach statistical significance; noninferiority of the TBT compared with the SBT concerning the improvement of total scores could be demonstrated. Regarding the individual FLS tasks, noninferiority of the TBT could be shown for the pattern cutting and the suturing with intracorporeal knot-tying task. The acceptance of the TBT by the trainees was very good. CONCLUSION: Learning BLS on a homemade TBT is at least equally effective as on an SBT, with the advantage of being very cost saving. Therefore, this readily available box trainer may be used as an effective, flexible training device outside the operating room to improve accessibility to simulation training.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".