Clinical trainee performance on task‐based AR/VR‐guided surgical simulation is correlated with their 3D image spatial reasoning scores
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes a methodology for the assessment of training simulator-based computer-assisted intervention skills on an AR/VR-guided procedure making use of CT axial slice views for a neurosurgical procedure: external ventricular drain (EVD) placement. The task requires that trainees scroll through a stack of axial slices and form a mental representation of the anatomical structures in order to subsequently target the ventricles to insert an EVD. The process of observing the 2D CT image slices in order to build a mental representation of the 3D anatomical structures is the skill being taught, along with the cognitive control of the subsequent targeting, by planned motor actions, of the EVD tip to the ventricular system to drain cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Convergence is established towards the validity of this assessment methodology by examining two objective measures of spatial reasoning, along with one subjective expert ranking methodology, and comparing these to AR/VR guidance. These measures have two components: the speed and accuracy of the targeting, which are used to derive the performance metric. Results of these correlations are presented for a population of PGY1 residents attending the Canadian Neurosurgical "Rookie Bootcamp" in 2019.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 it