MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Design and validation of a low-cost modular simulator for training in neonatal laparotomy and jejunoileal atresia repair

2025· article· en· W4413138051 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel Kwon, Abdullah Mashat, Ajay K. Banga, Rachel Livergant, Roger Tam, Shahrzad Joharifard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Surgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Children's Hospital
KeywordsMedicineIntestinal atresiaContent validityConstruct validityIliac crestFace validitySurgerySimulationAtresiaPatient satisfactionComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Surgical treatment of neonatal jejunoileal atresia requires highly specialized skills, but its rarity makes training opportunities sparse. We aimed to address this by developing and evaluating a low-cost, high-fidelity, modular simulator for comprehensive training in neonatal laparotomy and small bowel atresia repair. METHODS: Our design consisted of three primary components: bowel, abdominal wall, and abdominal cavity. 3D-printed molds were used to cast silicone models of type II and type IIIa atretic bowel with its mesentery. The abdominal wall was created by layering molded silicone and fabric. A small 3D-printed enclosure with an opening and bony landmarks was designed to simulate the neonatal abdomen. The material cost per model was ∼$16.88 USD, with each subsequent use costing ∼$5.09 USD. Eight expert surgeons and eight surgical trainees performed simulated atresia repairs and stoma creations. Participants rated face and content validity on a 5-point Likert scale. Videos of the simulated procedures were evaluated by an attending pediatric surgeon to assess construct validity by comparing performance between experts and trainees. RESULTS: The highest mean realism ratings were for surface anatomy (4.06) and anatomical structure (4.06). Content validity responses were positive (mean ratings >4), indicating that participants found the model thorough and valuable. Trainees made significantly more mistakes (p = 0.001) and completed fewer tasks (p = 0.01) than experts. CONCLUSION: Our simulator demonstrated strong face, content, and construct validity. It offers an accessible, cost-effective training tool, with promise for implementation in both high- and low-resource settings with limited surgical training opportunities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric SurgerySame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207