Implementing assessments of robot‐assisted technical skill in urological education: a systematic review and synthesis of the validity evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To systematically review and synthesise the validity evidence supporting intraoperative and simulation-based assessments of technical skill in urological robot-assisted surgery (RAS), and make evidence-based recommendations for the implementation of these assessments in urological training. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search of the Medline, PsycINFO and Embase databases was performed. Articles using technical skill and simulation-based assessments in RAS were abstracted. Only studies involving urology trainees or faculty were included in the final analysis. RESULTS: Multiple tools for the assessment of technical robotic skill have been published, with mixed sources of validity evidence to support their use. These evaluations have been used in both the ex vivo and in vivo settings. Performance evaluations range from global rating scales to psychometrics, and assessments are carried out through automation, expert analysts, and crowdsourcing. CONCLUSION: There have been rapid expansions in approaches to RAS technical skills assessment, both in simulated and clinical settings. Alternative approaches to assessment in RAS, such as crowdsourcing and psychometrics, remain under investigation. Evidence to support the use of these metrics in high-stakes decisions is likely insufficient at present.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".