Performance and learning rate prediction models development in FLS and RAS surgical tasks using electroencephalogram and eye gaze data and machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study explored the use of electroencephalogram (EEG) and eye gaze features, experience-related features, and machine learning to evaluate performance and learning rates in fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) and robotic-assisted surgery (RAS). METHODS: EEG and eye-tracking data were collected from 25 participants performing three FLS and 22 participants performing two RAS tasks. Generalized linear mixed models, using L1-penalized estimation, were developed to objectify performance evaluation using EEG and eye gaze features, and linear models were developed to objectify learning rate evaluation using these features and performance scores at the first attempt. Experience metrics were added to evaluate their role in learning robotic surgery. The differences in performance across experience levels were tested using analysis of variance. RESULTS: EEG and eye gaze features and experience-related features were important for evaluating performance in FLS and RAS tasks with reasonable results. Residents outperformed faculty in FLS peg transfer (p value = 0.04), while faculty and residents both excelled over pre-medical students in the FLS pattern cut (p value = 0.01 and p value < 0.001, respectively). Fellows outperformed pre-medical students in FLS suturing (p value = 0.01). In RAS tasks, both faculty and fellows surpassed pre-medical students (p values for the RAS pattern cut were 0.001 for faculty and 0.003 for fellows, while for RAS tissue dissection, the p value was less than 0.001 for both groups), with residents also showing superior skills in tissue dissection (p value = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Findings could be used to develop training interventions for improving surgical skills and have implications for understanding motor learning and designing interventions to enhance learning 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".