The effect of observing novice and expert performance on acquisition of surgical skills on a robotic platform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Observational learning plays an important role in surgical skills training, following the traditional model of learning from expertise. Recent findings have, however, highlighted the benefit of observing not only expert performance but also error-strewn performance. The aim of this study was to determine which model (novice vs. expert) would lead to the greatest benefits when learning robotically assisted surgical skills. METHODS: 120 medical students with no prior experience of robotically-assisted surgery completed a ring-carrying training task on three occasions; baseline, post-intervention and at one-week follow-up. The observation intervention consisted of a video model performing the ring-carrying task, with participants randomly assigned to view an expert model, a novice model, a mixed expert/novice model or no observation (control group). Participants were assessed for task performance and surgical instrument control. RESULTS: There were significant group differences post-intervention, with expert and novice observation groups outperforming the control group, but there were no clear group differences at a retention test one week later. There was no difference in performance between the expert-observing and error-observing groups. CONCLUSIONS: Similar benefits were found when observing the traditional expert model or the error-strewn model, suggesting that viewing poor performance may be as beneficial as viewing expertise in the early acquisition of robotic surgical skills. Further work is required to understand, then inform, the optimal curriculum design when utilising observational learning in surgical 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".