The Impact of Simulator Size on Forces Generated in the Performance of a Defined Intracorporeal Suturing Task: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In pediatric minimal access surgery, the operative domain may vary from that of an adult to that of a neonate. This study aimed to quantify the impact of decreased operative domain on forces generated in the performance of a defined intracorporeal suturing task. Methods: One hundred five participants performed a defined intracorporeal suturing task in small and large simulators. Time to task completion and force analysis parameters (FAPs = total, maximum, and mean forces in X, Y, and Z axes) were measured. Expertise level was assigned based on the number of laparoscopic cases. Outcomes were analyzed using paired sample t-tests, P value of <.05. Results: Time to task completion varied significantly for experts between adult and pediatric simulators but not for intermediates or novices. Total, maximum, and mean forces in the X (“side to side”) axis were significantly greater in the larger laparoscopic simulator for all levels of expertise. In the Y axis (“in and out” movement) and Z axis (“up and down” movement), total and mean forces were higher in the adult simulator regardless of the level of expertise. Differences in maximum force between the adult and pediatric simulators in the Z axis (“up and down” movement) varied significantly for novices and intermediates but not for experts. Conclusion: Forces were greater, particularly in the side-to-side plane, in the larger simulator for participants of all levels in the performance of this defined intracorporeal suturing task. Further analysis will determine the reasons for and implications of the increased force parameters in the simulator of larger domain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".