Effectiveness of Telementoring in Surgery Compared With On-site Mentoring: A Systematic Review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mentorship is important but may not be feasible for distance learning. To bridge this gap, telementoring has emerged. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of telementoring compared with on-site mentoring. METHODS: A search was done up to March 2015. Studies were included if they used telementoring between surgeons during a clinical encounter and if they compared on-site mentoring and telementoring. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were included. All reported no difference in complication rates, and 9 (82%) reported similar operative times; 4 (36%) reported technical issues, which was 3% of the total number of cases in the 11 studies. No study reported on higher levels of evidence for effectiveness of telementoring as an educational intervention. CONCLUSION: Studies reported that telementoring is associated with similar complication rates and operative times compared with on-site mentoring. However, the level of evidence to support the effectiveness of telementoring as a training tool is limited. There is a need for studies that provide evidence for the equivalence of the effectiveness of telementoring as an educational intervention in comparison with on-site mentoring.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it