<scp>IVORY</scp> Guidelines (Instructional Videos in Otorhinolaryngology by <scp>YO‐IFOS</scp>): A Consensus on Surgical Videos in Ear, Nose, and Throat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".