MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2532180918 · doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-625-5-29

An Examination of Metrics for a Simulated Ventriculostomy Part-Task.

2016· article· en· W2532180918 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan T. Armstrong, Dayna Noltie, Roy Eagleson, Sandrine de Ribaupierre

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVentriculostomyComputer scienceTask (project management)ImplementationVariation (astronomy)Machine learningData scienceArtificial intelligenceSoftware engineeringHydrocephalusMedicineSystems engineeringRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As one of the most commonly performed neurosurgical procedures, ventriculostomy training simulators are becoming increasingly familiar features in research institutes and teaching facilities. Despite their widespread implementations and adoption, simulators to date have not fully explored the landscape of performance metrics that reflect surgical proficiency. They opt instead for measures that are qualitative or simple to compute and conceptualize. In this paper, we examine and compare the use of various metrics to characterize the performance of users on simulated part-task ventriculostomy scenarios derived from patient data. As an initial study, we examine how our metrics relate to expert classification of scenario difficulty as well as measures of anatomical variation.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.093
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.093
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicSurgical Simulation and Training→French-language works237,207→