Assessment of learning curves on a simulated neurosurgical task using metrics selected by artificial intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Understanding the variation of learning curves of experts and trainees for a given surgical procedure is important in implementing formative learning paradigms to accelerate mastery. The study objectives were to use artificial intelligence (AI)-derived metrics to determine the learning curves of participants in 4 groups with different expertise levels who performed a series of identical virtual reality (VR) subpial resection tasks and to identify learning curve differences among the 4 groups. METHODS: A total of 50 individuals participated, 14 neurosurgeons, 4 neurosurgical fellows and 10 senior residents (seniors), 10 junior residents (juniors), and 12 medical students. All participants performed 5 repetitions of a subpial tumor resection on the NeuroVR (CAE Healthcare) platform, and 6 a priori-derived metrics selected using the K-nearest neighbors machine learning algorithm were used to assess participant learning curves. Group learning curves were plotted over the 5 trials for each metric. A mixed, repeated-measures ANOVA was performed between the first and fifth trial. For significant interactions (p < 0.05), post hoc Tukey's HSD analysis was conducted to determine the location of the significance. RESULTS: Overall, 5 of the 6 metrics assessed had a significant interaction (p < 0.05). The 4 groups, neurosurgeons, seniors, juniors, and medical students, showed an improvement between the first and fifth trial on at least one of the 6 metrics evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Learning curves generated using AI-derived metrics provided novel insights into technical skill acquisition, based on expertise level, during repeated VR-simulated subpial tumor resections, which will allow educators to develop more focused formative educational paradigms for neurosurgical trainees.
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 | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".