Objective assessment of surgeon’s psychomotor skill using virtual reality module
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
<span>This study aims to identify measurable parameters that could be used as objective assessment parameters to evaluate surgical dexterity using computer-based assessment module. A virtual reality module was developed to measure dynamic and static hand movements in a bimanual experimental setting. The experiment was conducted with sixteen subjects divided into two groups: surgeons (N = 5) and non-surgeons (N = 11). Results showed that surgeons outperformed the non-surgeons in motion path accuracy, motion path precision, economy of movement, motion smoothness, end-point accuracy and end-point precision. The six objective parameters can complement existing assessment methods to better quantify a trainee’s performance. These parameters also could provide information of hand movements that cannot be measured with the human eye. An assessment strategy using appropriate parameters could help trainees learn on computer-based systems, identify their mistakes and improve their skill towards the competency, without relying too much on bench models and cadavers.</span>
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 | 0.001 |
| 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