Response to <scp>LTE VSU</scp> ‐25‐133
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thank you for sharing your personal reflection on the use of three dimensional (3D) printed surgical guides in standard procedures. We appreciate your perspective and while we agree on many points, we still feel there is benefit to the use of 3D printed surgical guides in resident training and a variety of surgical procedures. We feel it is important to note that it was never our intention to recommend using a 3D printed surgical guide in place of appropriate anatomic understanding and surgical training. The use of 3D printed surgical guides should be used to enhance the learning of complex procedures for surgical trainees or to enhance the outcome of a surgical procedure for our veterinary patients. In our study, the goal was to compare the precision of freehand ventral slot drilling to guided ventral slot drilling, as decisions based on surgical guidelines and local anatomy intraoperatively may not be as precise as we would like to believe. Freehand ventral slots were significantly shorter than the intended dimensions of the ventral slot, whereas guided ventral slots were not. Further, improved precision in positioning relative to midline and slot shape were noted with the use of the drill guide. Based on these results we believe the use of a drill guide in the learning phases of this procedure may help to solidify the concept of slot dimensions, location and shape prior to moving on to freehand drilling. We consider the use of 3D guides to offer a complimentary, and potentially staged learning opportunity during surgical training. We also believe that introducing new technologies and applications such as 3D printing into more standard procedures may help surgical trainees to apply these concepts to more complex procedures in the future. While there are some inherent challenges with the use of 3D printed surgical guides, such as timeliness to design and print, along with access to 3D printers, it is becoming increasingly more achievable. As surgeons, we believe embracing technologic advances while considering ethical use is the way of the future. Atlantic Veterinary College Companion Animal Trust Fund.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".