P.079 Development of a performance model for virtual reality tumor resections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This work proposes a hypothetical model that integrates human factors (e.g. inherent ability and acquired expertise) and task factors (e.g. pre-procedural data, visual and haptic information) to better understand the hand ergonomics adaptation needed for optimal safety and efficiency during simulated brain tumor resections. Methods: Hand ergonomics of neurosurgeons, residents and medical students were assessed during simulated brain tumors resection on the NeuroVR virtual reality neurosurgical simulation platform. Spatial distribution of time expended, force applied, and tumor volume removed, and other metrics were analyzed in each tumor quadrant (Q1 to Q4). Results: Significant differences were observed between the most favorable hand ergonomics condition (Q2) and the unfavorable hand ergonomics condition (Q4). Neurosurgeons applied more total force, more mean force, and removed less tumor per unit of force applied in Q4. However, total volume removed was not significant between the two quadrants indicating hand ergonomics adaptation in order to maximize tumor removal. In comparison, hand ergonomics of medical students remained unchanged in all quadrants, indicating a learning phenomenon. Conclusions: Neurosurgeons are more capable of adapting their hand ergonomics during simulated brain tumor resections. Our proposed hypothetical model integrates our findings with the literature and highlights the importance of experience in the acquisition of adaptive hand ergonomics.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".