MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240604011 · doi:10.1177/229255031502300214

Teaching facial fracture repair: A novel method of surgical skills training using three-dimensional biomodels

2015· article· en· W4240604011 on OpenAlexaffabout
Neil D’Souza, James G. Mainprize, Glenn Edwards, Paul Binhammer, Oleh Antonyshyn

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic Surgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCompetence (human resources)Radiological weaponMedical physicsPhysical therapyMedical educationSurgeryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The facial fracture biomodel is a three-dimensional physical prototype of an actual facial fracture. The biomodel can be used as a novel teaching tool to facilitate technical skills training in fracture reduction and fixation, but more importantly, can help develop diagnostic and management competence. Objective To introduce the ‘facial fracture biomodel’ as a teaching aid, and to provide preliminary evidence of its effectiveness in teaching residents the principles of panfacial fracture repair. Method Computer three-dimensional image processing and rapid prototyping were used to generate an accurate physical model of a panfacial fracture, mounted in a silicon ‘soft tissue’ base. Senior plastic surgery residents in their third, fourth and fifth years of training across Canada were invited to participate in a workshop using this biomodel to simulate panfacial fracture repair. A short didactic presentation outlining the ‘patient's’ clinical and radiological findings, and key principles of fracture repair, was given by a consultant plastic surgeon before the exercise. The residents completed a pre- and postbiomodel questionnaire soliciting information regarding background, diagnosis and management, and feedback. Result A total of 29 residents completed both pre- and postbiomodel questionnaires. Statistically significant results were found in the following areas: diagnosis of all fracture patterns (P=8.2×10 −7 [t test]), choice of incisions for adequate exposure (P=0.04 [t test]) and identifying sequence of repair (P=0.019 [x 2 test]). Subjective evaluation of workshop effectiveness revealed a statistically significant increase in ‘comfort level’ only among third year trainees. Overall, positive feedback was reported among all participants. Conclusions Biomodelling is a promising ancillary teaching aid that can assist in teaching residents technical skills, as well as how to assess and plan surgical repair.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic SurgerySame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207