COMPARING THE EFFICIENCY OF A REAL-TIME ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE INSTRUCTOR TO HUMAN EXPERT INSTRUCTORS IN SIMULATED SURGICAL TECHNICAL SKILLS TRAINING– A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BTFC travel award recipient Artificial intelligence systems provide risk-free training on realistically simulated patient cases and objective assessment of surgical technical skills. This randomized controlled study compared a real-time intelligent tutoring system in technical skills learning with human expert instructor-mediated training. METHODS: Ninety-eight medical students performed six simulated brain tumor resections. Participants were randomly allocated into (1)no-real-time feedback, (2)real-time intelligent instruction, and (3)in- person human instruction. All students performed the first repetition without receiving feedback (baseline). Group-1 received visual feedback only after each procedure based on expert benchmarks. Group-2 was instructed by the intelligent system in real-time. After each task, the students were shown their error-video clips generated by this system alongside expert-level demonstrations on how to improve. Group-3 was instructed by human instructors during the tasks. After each task, instructors summarized the areas of improvement and demonstrated correction techniques. Participant performance was scored by the intelligent system and also by blinded experts using OSATS scores. The performance score was compared within groups and between groups to compare learning. RESULTS: Compared to baseline performance, Group-2 and Group-3 significantly improved in the performance score by the third and second repetition, respectively (p<0.01, p=0.01). The between-groups comparison demonstrated that Group-2 scored significantly higher than Group-3 in the fifth repetition (p<0.01). Group-2 achieved significantly higher OSATS scores than Group-1 in the sixth task. CONCLUSIONS: Artificial intelligence may facilitate trainee learning by providing equally or more efficient learning when compared to human instruction. These systems may aid in developing competency-based standardized curricula in surgical 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 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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".