MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3070211865 · doi:10.1002/lary.29020

<scp>IVORY</scp> Guidelines (Instructional Videos in Otorhinolaryngology by <scp>YO‐IFOS</scp>): A Consensus on Surgical Videos in Ear, Nose, and Throat

2020· article· en· W3070211865 on OpenAlexaff
François Simon, Shazia Peer, Justin Michel, Iain Bruce, Maryana Cherkes, Françoise Denoyelle, Johannes J. Fagan, Muraleedharan Harish, Paul Hong, Adrian L. James, Huan Jia, Prakash Krishnan, Rebecca Maunsell, Vikash K. Modi, Yann Nguyen, Sanjay R. Parikh, Nirmal Patel, Bas Pullens, Gennaro Russo, Michael J. Rutter, Zoukaa Sargi, David A. Shaye, Leigh J. Sowerby, Matthew Yung, Carlton J. Zdanski, N. Teissier, Nicolas Fakhry

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Laryngoscope · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityDalhousie UniversitySickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick ChildrenIzaak Walton Killam Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOtorhinolaryngologyOtologyNoseMedical physicsGeneral surgerySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Otolaryngology instructional videos available online are often of poor quality. The objective of this article was to establish international consensus recommendations for the production of educational surgical videos in otolaryngology. STUDY DESIGN: DELPHI survey. METHODS: Twenty-seven international respondents participated in this study from 12 countries. Consensus was reached after three rounds of questionnaires following the Delphi methodology. The proposals having reached the 80% agreement threshold in the third round were retained. RESULTS: The main recommendations are as follows: 1) Ethics: patients must be anonymized and unrecognizable (apart from plastic surgery if necessary). A signed authorization must be obtained if the person is recognizable. 2) Technical aspects: videos should be edited and in high-definition (HD) quality if possible. Narration or subtitles and didactic illustrations are recommended. 3) Case presentation: name of pathology and procedure must be specified; the case should be presented with relevant workup. 4) Surgery: surgical procedures should be divided into several distinct stages and include tips and pitfalls. Pathology should be shown if relevant. Key points should be detailed at the end of the procedure. 5) Organ-specific: type of approach and bilateral audiometry should be specified in otology. Coronal plane computed tomography scans should be shown in endonasal surgery. It is recommended to show pre- and postoperative videos in voice surgery and preoperative drawings and photos of scars in plastic surgery, as well as the ventilation method in airway surgery. CONCLUSIONS: International recommendations have been determined to assist in the creation and standardization of educational surgical videos in otolaryngology and head and neck surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5 Laryngoscope, 131:E732-E737, 2021.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReporting
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe LaryngoscopeSame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207