Face and Content Validity of an Artificial Eye Model for Secondary Intraocular Lens Fixation via Yamane Technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jordan J Huang,1 Derek Waldner,1,2 Jaxon J Huang,3 Joshua M Huang,1 Paul Huang,1,2 Joshua C Teichman,4,5 Mahshad Darvish-Zargar,6 Patrick Gooi2 1Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; 2Division of Ophthalmology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; 3John A. Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, USA; 4Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 5Division of Ophthalmology, Trillium Health Partners, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada; 6Division of Ophthalmology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, CanadaCorrespondence: Jordan J Huang, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Dr NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4N1, Canada, Tel +1 403 991 8897, Email jordanhuang8@gmail.comPurpose: To assess the face and content validity of an artificial eye model for secondary intraocular lens (IOL) fixation via the Yamane technique.Methods: Ophthalmologists and residents participated in a 90-minute simulation session on secondary IOL fixation via the Yamane technique. Hands-on practice of this technique was performed on an artificial eye, the Bioniko Okulo BR8. After, all ophthalmologists answered an 18-question survey assessing the face and content validity of the model. Survey responses were recorded on a 5-point double-headed Likert scale, ranging from strongly agree (1)-to-strongly disagree (5) (Figure 1).Results: Twenty-three surveys were completed. Respondents rated the survey with a median response of 1 (strongly agree)-to-3 (neutral). Highest ratings for the model were received for “usefulness for training residents”, and “easier to set up and clean-up compared to a cadaver”. Lowest ratings were received for realism of the model compared to cadaveric eyes. Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference among identified groups. Ratings for face and content validity were viewed favorably, both with an overall median response of 2.00 (agree).Conclusion: The Bioniko Okulo BR8 shows promise as a valid tool for practicing secondary IOL fixation via the Yamane technique. Considering recent guidelines in competency-based ophthalmology education programs, this model may be a valuable tool over traditional techniques for teaching and improving surgical skill amongst trainees.Keywords: training, cataracts, Bioniko, Okulo, model
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".