A115 EVALUATING THE CONTENT AND FACE VALIDITY OF LOW-COST GEL POLYPS FOR POLYPECTOMY SKILLS TRAINING IN NOVICE ENDOSCOPISTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Polypectomy is an essential endoscopic skill involving the removal of potentially premalignant lesions during colonoscopy. The ad hoc nature of polyp encounters is a significant barrier to polypectomy training, as this limits the ability to deliberately practice the skill. Effective and accessible polypectomy simulators may improve global implementation of polypectomy curricula. Aims To determine the face and content validity of a novel low-cost gel polyp simulator for use in endoscopic training programs. Methods A novel gel polyp simulator with multiple polyp morphologies based on the Paris classification was developed and used with a commercially available colonic phantom (Koken Lower GI Endoscopy Simulator Type II LM-107, Koken CO.LTD, Japan) in an endoscopy simulation-based training course (July, 2023). Feedback based on previous prototypes of the simulator were implemented into the simulator utilized in the present study. Novice (ampersand:003C25 procedures) and expert (ampersand:003E1000 procedures) endoscopists performed simulated procedures with the gel polyps. Using a five-point Likert scale (“strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”), a post-training survey based on previously published surveys used to determine the face and content validity of low-cost physical colonic simulators was administered. A section for additional comments was placed at the end of the survey. Results The face and content validity survey was completed by 3 experts and 21 novices. The median score for all face validity questions was 5 (IQR 5-5) from experts and 5 (IQR 5-5) from novices. The median score for all content validity questions was 5 (IQR 5-4) from experts and 5 (IQR 5-5) from novices. In the additional comments section of the survey, one expert commented that future iterations of the gel polyps should be made thicker so that trainees could practice using endoscopic clips. The gel polyp simulator cost $0.61 CAD/polyp including the cost of materials and 3D printed molds. Conclusions The gel polyp simulator appears to be a feasible modality for polypectomy training that is reproducible using accessible and low cost materials. Face and Content Validity Survey (questions and median survey score) Funding Agencies None
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 | 0.012 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".