Virtual Reality Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Simulation on the Novel Sim-Ortho Platform: Validation Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Virtual reality spine simulators are emerging as potential educational tools to assess and train surgical procedures in safe environments. Analysis of validity is important in determining the educational utility of these systems. OBJECTIVE: To assess face, content, and construct validity of a C4-C5 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion simulation on the Sim-Ortho virtual reality platform, developed by OSSimTechTM (Montreal, Canada) and the AO Foundation (Davos, Switzerland). METHODS: Spine surgeons, spine fellows, along with neurosurgical and orthopedic residents, performed a simulated C4-C5 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion on the Sim-Ortho system. Participants were separated into 3 categories: post-residents (spine surgeons and spine fellows), senior residents, and junior residents. A Likert scale was used to assess face and content validity. Construct validity was evaluated by investigating differences between the 3 groups on metrics derived from simulator data. The Kruskal-Wallis test was employed to compare groups and a post-hoc Dunn's test with a Bonferroni correction was utilized to investigate differences between groups on significant metrics. RESULTS: A total of 21 individuals were included: 9 post-residents, 5 senior residents, and 7 junior residents. The post-resident group rated face and content validity, median ≥4, for the overall procedure and at least 1 tool in each of the 4 steps. Significant differences (P < .05) were found between the post-resident group and senior and/or junior residents on at least 1 metric for each component of the simulation. CONCLUSION: The C4-C5 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion simulation on the Sim-Ortho platform demonstrated face, content, and construct validity suggesting its utility as a formative educational tool.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".