Stereo Laparoscopy: A Novel Approach to Resident Surgical Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Elevated spatial ability is linked to improved surgical skill acquisition in experienced individuals. This may be important in laparoscopic skill mastery, where stereo visualization may confer an advantage to novices of variant spatial ability. This study aims to evaluate differences in skill acquisition resulting from variable spatial ability in future laparoscopists. In a pilot study, pre‐clerkship medical students were subdivided into groups based on spatial ability as measured by a Mental Rotations Test (High spatial scores: MRT >;14, Low spatial scores: MRT <10). Students were introduced to tasks via standardized video instruction, and asked to complete four validated laparoscopic tasks under both stereo and monocular viewing paradigms. Students were evaluated on task performance for timing, completion and efficiency. No significant difference was observed between students of high and low spatial ability for any individual task, overall, or in either viewing modality via ANOVA with repeated measures. A trend of higher overall average scores for High spatial ability students (86.68 ± 15.14) was evident compared to low spatial ability students (76.67 ± 15.73). This pilot study suggests that stereo visualization benefits individuals differently according to individual spatial ability. We postulate that stereo visualizations may serve to compensate for reduced spatial ability, thus enhancing skill performance in individuals of low spatial ability. Grant Funding Source : Departmental
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".