Effect of Artificial Intelligence-Augmented Human Instruction on Feedback Frequency and Surgical Performance During Simulation Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether personalized feedback from a human instructor receiving artificial intelligence (AI) error data will result in reduced feedback frequency and improvement of surgical skill compared to AI instruction. As feedback was only provided following AI error detection, a reduced feedback frequency is associated with fewer errors in performance. We hypothesized that AI-augmented personalized instruction would result in reduced feedback frequency and improvement in technical skill. DESIGN: This cross-sectional cohort study was a follow-up of a randomized controlled trial, which utilized the NeuroVR, an immersive virtual reality neurosurgical simulator. Participants were stratified by year in medical school and block randomized to receive one of 3 educational interventions as they performed simulated procedures on the NeuroVR: AI tutor instruction, scripted human instruction, and AI-augmented personalized instruction. Performance was assessed by the feedback frequency and technical skill performance metrics. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ID: NCT06273579. SETTING: Neurosurgical Simulation and Artificial Intelligence Learning Centre, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Volunteer sample of medical students from 4 Quebec universities in preparatory, first, or second year without prior use of the NeuroVR. Eighty-eight students participated in the study with 87 included in the final analysis; 1 was excluded due to technical issues. RESULTS: By the third repetition, the AI-augmented personalized instruction group received significantly fewer total instructions (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.50 [95% CI, 1.16-1.94] instructions; p < 0.001), and high aspirator force instructions (IRR, 1.71 [95% CI, 1.15-2.55] instructions; p = 0.002), compared to the second repetition. Compared to AI tutor instruction, AI-augmented personalized instruction resulted in a significantly lower rate of healthy tissue removal (p = 0.01), instrument tip separation distance (mean ratio, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.05-1.50] mm; p = 0.008), and aspirator force (mean ratio, 1.68 [95% CI, 1.23-2.31] N; p < 0.001). AI-augmented personalized instruction showed a significant improvement from baseline in all subsequent repetitions for all performance metrics. CONCLUSIONS: This cohort study demonstrated that AI-augmented personalized instruction resulted in less frequent feedback, indicating fewer errors in trainee performance, and an improvement in simulated surgical skills.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".