Artificial Neural Networks to Assess Virtual Reality Anterior Cervical Discectomy Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Virtual reality surgical simulators provide a safe environment for trainees to practice specific surgical scenarios and allow for self-guided learning. Artificial intelligence technology, including artificial neural networks, offers the potential to manipulate large datasets from simulators to gain insight into the importance of specific performance metrics during simulated operative tasks. OBJECTIVE: To distinguish performance in a virtual reality-simulated anterior cervical discectomy scenario, uncover novel performance metrics, and gain insight into the relative importance of each metric using artificial neural networks. METHODS: Twenty-one participants performed a simulated anterior cervical discectomy on the novel virtual reality Sim-Ortho simulator. Participants were divided into 3 groups, including 9 post-resident, 5 senior, and 7 junior participants. This study focused on the discectomy portion of the task. Data were recorded and manipulated to calculate metrics of performance for each participant. Neural networks were trained and tested and the relative importance of each metric was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 369 metrics spanning 4 categories (safety, efficiency, motion, and cognition) were generated. An artificial neural network was trained on 16 selected metrics and tested, achieving a training accuracy of 100% and a testing accuracy of 83.3%. Network analysis identified safety metrics, including the number of contacts on spinal dura, as highly important. CONCLUSION: Artificial neural networks classified 3 groups of participants based on expertise allowing insight into the relative importance of specific metrics of performance. This novel methodology aids in the understanding of which components of surgical performance predominantly contribute to expertise.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".