Acute mental stress and surgical performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stress has been shown to impact adversely on multiple facets critical to optimal performance. Advancements in wearable technology can reduce barriers to observing stress during surgery. This study aimed to investigate the association between acute intraoperative mental stress and technical surgical performance. Continuous electrocardiogram data for a single attending surgeon were captured during surgical procedures to obtain heart rate variability (HRV) measures that were used as a proxy for acute mental stress. Two different measures were used: root mean square of successive differences (RMSSD) and standard deviation of RR intervals (SDNN). Technical surgical performance was assessed on the Operating Room Black Box® platform using the Generic Error Rating Tool (GERT). Both HRV recording and procedure video recording were time-stamped. Surgical procedures were fragmented to non-overlapping intervals of 1, 2 and 5 min, and subjected to data analysis. An event was defined as any deviation that caused injury to the patient or posed a risk of harm. Rates of events were significantly higher (47–66 per cent higher) in the higher stress quantiles than in the lower stress quantiles for all measured interval lengths using both proxy measures for acute mental stress. The strongest association was observed using 1-min intervals with RMSSD as the HRV measure (P < 0·001). There is an association between measures of acute mental stress and worse technical surgical performance. Further study will help delineate the interdependence of these variables and identify triggers for increased stress levels to improve surgical safety. Stress reduces surgical performance
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".