MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604632007 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.16.00324

Virtual Reality Compared with Bench-Top Simulation in the Acquisition of Arthroscopic Skill

2017· article· en· W2604632007 on OpenAlex
Daniel Banaszek, Daniel You, Justues Chang, Michael Pickell, Daniel Hesse, Wilma M. Hopman, Daniel Borschneck, Davide Bardana

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsKingston General HospitalQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVirtual realityDreyfus model of skill acquisitionTask (project management)Learning curveComputer scienceMedicineMedical physicsSimulationPhysical therapyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Work-hour restrictions as set forth by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and other governing bodies have forced training programs to seek out new learning tools to accelerate acquisition of both medical skills and knowledge. As a result, competency-based training has become an important part of residency training. The purpose of this study was to directly compare arthroscopic skill acquisition in both high-fidelity and low-fidelity simulator models and to assess skill transfer from either modality to a cadaveric specimen, simulating intraoperative conditions. METHODS: Forty surgical novices (pre-clerkship-level medical students) voluntarily participated in this trial. Baseline demographic data, as well as data on arthroscopic knowledge and skill, were collected prior to training. Subjects were randomized to 5-week independent training sessions on a high-fidelity virtual reality arthroscopic simulator or on a bench-top arthroscopic setup, or to an untrained control group. Post-training, subjects were asked to perform a diagnostic arthroscopy on both simulators and in a simulated intraoperative environment on a cadaveric knee. A more difficult surprise task was also incorporated to evaluate skill transfer. Subjects were evaluated using the Global Rating Scale (GRS), the 14-point arthroscopic checklist, and a timer to determine procedural efficiency (time per task). Secondary outcomes focused on objective measures of virtual reality simulator motion analysis. RESULTS: Trainees on both simulators demonstrated a significant improvement (p < 0.05) in arthroscopic skills compared with baseline scores and untrained controls, both in and ex vivo. The virtual reality simulation group consistently outperformed the bench-top model group in the diagnostic arthroscopy crossover tests and in the simulated cadaveric setup. Furthermore, the virtual reality group demonstrated superior skill transfer in the surprise skill transfer task. CONCLUSIONS: Both high-fidelity and low-fidelity simulation trainings were effective in arthroscopic skill acquisition. High-fidelity virtual reality simulation was superior to bench-top simulation in the acquisition of arthroscopic skills, both in the laboratory and in vivo. Further clinical investigation is needed to interpret the importance of these results.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.260 · 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