Validity of a Soft and Flexible 3D-Printed Nissen Fundoplication Model in Surgical Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rapid development of three-dimensional (3D) printing technique has enabled the production of many new materials for medical applications but the dry laboratory surgical training model made of soft and flexible materials is still insufficient. We established a new 3D-printed Nissen fundoplication training model of which materials simulate the real mechanical properties. In this study, 16 participants were divided into two groups: Experimental group and control group. The validity of model was tested using Likert scale by the experts and the experimental group. To evaluate the efficacy, performances of the experimental group were scored at the first, fourth, and eighth training by OSATS system and the duration of procedure was compared through the use of recorded video. Meanwhile, an ex vivo model was used to compare the performance of the experiment group and control group after the training in the same way. Our results showed that the 3D-printed model can support the future surgical applications, help improve surgical skills, and shorten procedure time after training.
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 | 0.001 | 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".