Opportunities and Applications of Educational Technologies in Surgical Education and Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Describe the latest technological in surgical education and assessment.Background:Surgical education is challenged by continuously increasing clinical content, greater subspecialization, and public scrutiny of access to high-quality surgical care. Since the last Blue Ribbon Committee on surgical education, novel technologies have been developed, including artificial intelligence and telecommunication. METHODS: The goals of this Blue Ribbon Sub-Committee were to construct a framework for applying these technologies to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of surgical education and assessment.An additional goal was to identify implementation frameworks and strategies for centers with different resources and access. All subcommittee recommendations were included in a Delphi consensus process with the entire Blue Ribbon Committee (N = 67). RESULTS: Our subcommittee found several new technologies and opportunities that are well-poised to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of surgical education and assessment (Tables 1-3). Our top recommendation was that a Multidisciplinary Surgical Educational Council be established to serve as an oversight body to develop consensus, facilitate implementation, and establish best practices for technology implementation and assessment. This recommendation achieved 93% consensus during the first round of the Delphi process. CONCLUSIONS: Advances in technology-based assessment, data analytics, and behavioral analysis now allow us to create personalized educational programs based on individual preferences and learning styles. If implemented properly, education technology has the promise of improving the quality and efficiency of surgical education and decreasing the demands on clinical faculty.
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 | 0.049 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".