Artificial Intelligence Distinguishes Surgical Training Levels in a Virtual Reality Spinal Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the emergence of competency-based training, the current evaluation scheme of surgical skills is evolving to include newer methods of assessment and training. Artificial intelligence through machine learning algorithms can utilize extensive data sets to analyze operator performance. This study aimed to address 3 questions: (1) Can artificial intelligence uncover novel metrics of surgical performance? (2) Can support vector machine algorithms be trained to differentiate "senior" and "junior" participants who are executing a virtual reality hemilaminectomy? (3) Can other algorithms achieve a good classification performance? METHODS: Participants from 4 Canadian universities were divided into 2 groups according to their training level (senior and junior) and were asked to perform a virtual reality hemilaminectomy. The position, angle, and force application of the simulated burr and suction instruments, along with tissue volumes that were removed, were recorded at 20-ms intervals. Raw data were manipulated to create metrics to train machine learning algorithms. Five algorithms, including a support vector machine, were trained to predict whether the task was performed by a senior or junior participant. The accuracy of each algorithm was assessed through leave-one-out cross-validation. RESULTS: Forty-one individuals were enrolled (22 senior and 19 junior participants). Twelve metrics related to safety of the procedure, efficiency, motion of the tools, and coordination were selected. Following cross-validation, the support vector machine achieved a 97.6% accuracy. The other algorithms achieved accuracy of 92.7%, 87.8%, 70.7%, and 65.9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Artificial intelligence defined novel metrics of surgical performance and outlined training levels in a virtual reality spinal simulation procedure. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The significance of these results lies in the potential of artificial intelligence to complement current educational paradigms and better prepare residents for surgical procedures.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".