Analyzing colonoscopy training learning curves using comparative hand tracking assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A competency-based approach for colonoscopy training is particularly important, since the amount of practice required for proficiency varies widely between trainees. Though numerous objective proficiency assessment frameworks have been validated in the literature, these frameworks rely on expert observers. This process is time-consuming, and as a result, there has been increased interest in automated proficiency rating of colonoscopies. This work aims to investigate sixteen automatically computed performance metrics, and whether they can measure improvements in novices following a series of practice attempts. This involves calculating motion-tracking parameters for three groups: untrained novices, those same novices after undergoing training exercises, and experts. Both groups had electromagnetic tracking markers fixed to their hands and the scope tip. Each participant performed eight testing sequences designed by an experienced clinician. Novices were then trained on 30 phantoms and re-tested. The tracking data of these groups were analyzed using sixteen metrics computed by the Perk Tutor extension for Slicer. Statistical differences were calculated using a series of three t-tests, adjusting for multiple comparisons. All sixteen metrics were statistically different between pre-trained novices and experts, which provides evidence of their validity as measures of performance. Experts had fewer translational or rotational movements, a shorter and more efficient path, and performed the procedure faster. Pre- and post-trained novices did not significantly differ in average velocity, motion smoothness, or path inefficiency.
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 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".