The Use of Three‐Dimensional Printing Model in the Training of Choledochoscopy Techniques
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the application value of a three-dimensional (3D) printing model in the training of choledochoscopy techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Imaging data from two patients with biliary dilatation were used to produce two 3D reconstruction models which were subsequently constructed into 3D printing models (No. 1 and No. 2). Four hepatobiliary surgeons evaluated the anatomical accuracy and academic teaching value of the printed models. Twenty resident trainees with no prior experience in any kind of endoscopic techniques were randomly and symmetrically divided into two groups. The training group (A) used the 3D model No. 1 in the learning of biliary tract anatomy and practice techniques of choledochoscopy. The control group (B) got the virtual 3D image of the same model on computer for learning. After 4 weeks, the model No. 2 was used to reassess the trainees' subjective and objective progress in anatomy familiarity and choledochoscopy manipulations. RESULTS: All consulted surgeons agreed that the 3D models realistically reproduced the anatomy of the biliary system. All trainees in group A agreed or strongly agreed that the 3D models provided good anatomical realism, enhanced their experience in the training of choledochoscopy techniques, and aided in their learning of biliary anatomy. With the practice went on, they increased the accuracy and showed a reduction in operation time on the model No. 1. During final examination with model No. 2, the rate of correct anatomical structure identification in training group was significantly higher than group B (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The 3D printed biliary tract model is an excellent teaching tool in the training of choledochoscopy techniques. The 3D model is anatomically realistic and can improve the trainee's anatomical knowledge and endoscopic skills.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it