MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782020454 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0190580

Development of an objective assessment tool for total laparoscopic hysterectomy: A Delphi method among experts and evaluation on a virtual reality simulator

2018· article· en· W2782020454 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sophie Knight, Rajesh Aggarwal, Aubert Agostini, Anderson Loundou, Stéphane Berdah, Patrice Crochet

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of Canada
KeywordsIntraclass correlationDelphiDelphi methodReliability (semiconductor)Scale (ratio)Virtual realityHysterectomyTask (project management)Medical physicsMedicineComputer sciencePsychometricsSurgeryArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Total Laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) requires an advanced level of operative skills and training. The aim of this study was to develop an objective scale specific for the assessment of technical skills for LH (H-OSATS) and to demonstrate feasibility of use and validity in a virtual reality setting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The scale was developed using a hierarchical task analysis and a panel of international experts. A Delphi method obtained consensus among experts on relevant steps that should be included into the H-OSATS scale for assessment of operative performances. Feasibility of use and validity of the scale were evaluated by reviewing video recordings of LH performed on a virtual reality laparoscopic simulator. Three groups of operators of different levels of experience were assessed in a Marseille teaching hospital (10 novices, 8 intermediates and 8 experienced surgeons). Correlations with scores obtained using a recognised generic global rating tool (OSATS) were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 76 discrete steps were identified by the hierarchical task analysis. 14 experts completed the two rounds of the Delphi questionnaire. 64 steps reached consensus and were integrated in the scale. During the validation process, median time to rate each video recording was 25 minutes. There was a significant difference between the novice, intermediate and experienced group for total H-OSATS scores (133, 155.9 and 178.25 respectively; p = 0.002). H-OSATS scale demonstrated high inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.930; p<0.001) and test retest reliability (ICC = 0.877; p<0.001). High correlations were found between total H-OSATS scores and OSATS scores (rho = 0.928; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The H-OSATS scale displayed evidence of validity for assessment of technical performances for LH performed on a virtual reality simulator. The implementation of this scale is expected to facilitate deliberate practice. Next steps should focus on evaluating the validity of the scale in the operating room.

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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.680
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations53
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207