Neurosurgical performance between experts and trainees: Evidence from drilling task
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lumbar laminectomy is a common neurosurgery that requires precise manipulation of power drills. We examined the fine movement controls of novice neurosurgeons in drilling tasks and compared its accuracy to expert surgeons' performance. METHODS: Four experts and three novice neurosurgeons performed a lumbar laminectomy on a three-dimensional printed spine model. Scene video and surgeons' eye movements were recorded. Independent sample t-Tests were conducted on the number of jump, total fixation durations, pre-jump fixation durations, post-jump fixation durations and jump distances over novice and expert surgeons. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were recorded in terms of total fixations and pre-jump fixation durations. However, novices had more jumping events, greater jump distances and longer post-jump fixation durations when compared to expert neurosurgeons. CONCLUSION: Differences in movement accuracy and eye measures were found between expert and novice neurosurgeons during a simulated microscopic lumbar laminectomy. A more comprehensive understanding of surgeon's fine movement control mechanism and eye-hand coordination in microsurgery is essential for us before building an enhanced training protocol for surgical residents in neurosurgery.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it