Development and Evaluation of a High-Fidelity Rhinoplasty Simulator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY: Rhinoplasty is a challenging procedure with a steep learning curve. Surgical simulators provide a safe platform to gain hands-on experience without compromising patient outcomes. Therefore, rhinoplasty is an ideal procedure to benefit from an effective surgical simulator. A high-fidelity rhinoplasty simulator was developed using three-dimensional computer modeling, three-dimensional printing, and polymer techniques. The simulator was tested by six surgeons with experience in rhinoplasty to assess realism, anatomic accuracy, and value as a training tool. The surgeons performed common rhinoplasty techniques and were provided a Likert-type questionnaire assessing the anatomic features of the simulator. A variety of surgical techniques were performed successfully using the simulator, including open and closed approaches. Bony techniques performed included endonasal osteotomies and rasping. Submucous resection with harvest of septal cartilage, cephalic trim, and tip suturing, as well as grafting techniques including alar rim, columellar strut, spreader, and shield grafts, were performed successfully. Overall, there was agreement on the simulator's anatomic accuracy of bony and soft-tissue features. There was strong agreement on the simulator's overall realism and value as a training tool. The simulator provides a high-fidelity, comprehensive training platform to learn rhinoplasty techniques to augment real operating experience without compromising patient outcomes.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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".