Evaluation of a curved surgical prototype in a human larynx
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: It is not always possible to create linear access to the larynx using a rigid operating laryngoscope for microlaryngoscopy. In this study, we evaluate the usability of a novel curved surgical prototype with flexible instruments for the larynx (sMAC) in a simulation dummy and human body donor. METHODS: In a user study (n = 6), head and neck surgeons as well as medical students tested the system for visualization quality and accessibility of laryngeal landmarks on an intubation dummy and human cadaver. A biopsy of the epiglottis was taken from the body donor. Photographic and time documentation was carried out. RESULTS: The sMAC system demonstrated general feasibility for laryngeal surgery. Unlike conventional microlaryngoscopy, all landmarks could be visualized and manipulated in both setups. Biopsy removal was possible. Visibility of the surgical field remained largely unobstructed even with an endotracheal tube in place. Overall handling of the sMAC prototype was satisfactorily feasible at all times. CONCLUSION: The sMAC system could offer an alternative for patients, where microlaryngoscopy is not applicable. A clinical trial has to clarify if the system benefits in clinical routine.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".